nuclear-news

The wrong stuff – Musk and the 4/20 rocket drill

on nearly all the times Musk has tried to land Starship its blown up or crashed.

But its Musk’s money, he can do whatever he likes with it surely? Actually, no Starship now forms a critical part of NASA’s lunar landing project. These tests are mostly taxpayer funded.

So on the 20th of April (4/20, so at least we know what he was smoking), chief twit Elon Musk launched his ego rocket to cheering crowds, which was deemed a success. …despite blowing itself to bits and scattering debris over a wetlands habitat. I’m sorry, but that’s not what can even be considered a success. But it just goes to show the double standards the media applies to Musk and other tech bro’s. And how lazy most journalists are.

The wrong stuff – Musk and the 4/20 rocket drill — daryanenergyblog

……………………………………. its considered bad luck to cheer during a rocket launch (as it was not unusual for people to cheer in these early days only for the rocket to shortly there after blow up). Musk and his fanboys seem intend on re-learning what we all ready know.

Indeed, there’s very little that we learnt from this test flight that couldn’t have been learned from ground testing, simulations, some quick calculations….or applying some basic common sense. For example, the main problem was how Musk’s rocket was less the world’s big’s rocket, but the the world’s biggest drill bit. It chewed up its own launch pad and effectively destroyed it, spraying chucks of concrete out to a distance of several hundred metres, damaging equipment on site (likely including the rocket itself as several engines failed immediately upon launch) and scatter debris into a protected wetland area.

This was entirely predictable and indeed several commentators did predict it (but obviously Musk the college drop out knows way more about rocketry than these guys with their fancy degrees). This is why most other launch complexes have a flame pit and maintain a large separation between the pad and anything that might not react well to flaming chucks of debris (like a tank full of propellants).

There were also some control and stability issues, as the aerodynamic surfaces at the front of the craft require control inputs from the engines at the back just to fly in a straight line (think of an arrow, where you put the fins on the front instead of on the back). Obviously, this means the engines have to work harder to steer. Plus you lose enough of the steerable engines (or you hit gimbal lock) and the rocket becomes uncontrollable (which towards the end of the flight, is basically what happened).

And since we are talking about it, I still can’t understand why he’s using Methane as a fuel. This gives a specific impulse of only 360s, while Lox/LH2 will give you at least 450s (i.e. 20% more bangs for each gram of fuel). And NASA has the RS-25 engines used by the SLS (based on the space shuttle engines, so a proven technology), which are also reusable and can be throttled. The only reason not to use them seems to be not invented here syndrome. Either way, it would make far more sense to adapt Starship to be brought up to orbit in sections by the SLS (or just go with a more sensible space craft design), or adapt SLS to lift it up in one go (e.g. cluster several core SLS stages together, similar to the soviet Energia system).

And least we forget, Starship is supposed to be a man rated rocket (which for NASA means getting the probability of loss down to 1 in 500…good luck with that one!). There has to be serious doubts about it meeting that now. Aside from the issued I discussed previously related to its stainless steel construction, it also has to undertake a very risky manoeuvre in order to separate both halves. The rocket does a 180 degree spin arse over end, sling shooting the upper stage away from the lower stage (keeping in mind the control issues I mentioned earlier, will be much worse due to the fact the rocket is now nose heavy, as most of the fuel in the lower stage is gone). And its possible the rocket broke its back trying to do this.

Its also unclear how Starship is supposed to separate and land safely in the event of a booster failure during the early launch phase (had more of those engines been lost earlier on, this type of failure would have occurred shortly after lift off). By contrast the Orion capsule on the SLS (or indeed Soyuz or the Dragon capsule) has an escape tower, which will boost the capsule and its crew away from a failing rocket. No such escape options appear to exist for Starship. Indeed on nearly all the times Musk has tried to land Starship its blown up or crashed.

But its Musk’s money, he can do whatever he likes with it surely? Actually, no Starship now forms a critical part of NASA’s lunar landing project. These tests are mostly taxpayer funded. Quite apart from the costs of delaying the entire lunar project, the costs of the impending FAA investigation and the time of the US wildlife service who are going to have to devote to cleaning up the mess in the wetlands.

And this is hardly the first time Musk has promised way more than he can deliver. As I mentioned before, Falcon was supposed to be fully reusable, but is only partially reusable (and even then, more in theory than practice), at a significantly higher cost. Hyperloop is still a pipe dream, and the loop is a glorified Disney ride. Meanwhile twitter is an increasingly unreliable hellscape which has lost half its value since he took it over, and self driving cars? Will be available in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2024.

I mean imagine if NASA behaved the same way as Musk. Or let’s suppose some Mexican billionaire started blowing up rockets just across the border in Mexico showering debris into the US. Would they be treated the same way by the US government or the media? No, they’d be pretty quick to shut them down. But being a billionaire is basically an excuse to get away with anything in America, even if its criminal, immoral or insane. https://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2023/04/30/the-wrong-stuff-musk-and-4-20-rocket-drill/

May 1, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | 2 Comments

Stop SpaceX from crashing rockets in the Pacific.

Hawaii should not be a collateral sacrifice zone for a private space company working for the pentagon

 Hawaii needs to have input on SpaceX ocean-landing plan, STAR ADVERTISER. By Lynda Williams, APRIL 27, 2023

The world watched aghast as SpaceX blew up its own spaceship on April 20, four minutes after launch due to engine failure. Even though the mission was not completed, Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, claimed it was a success because the real goal was for the rocket to clear the launch pad at the spaceport in Boca Chica, Texas.

What most folks don’t know or realize is that Starship was always going to blow up when it crashlanded in the Pacific Ocean, just 62 nautical miles north of Kauai and a few hundred miles east of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.

In the next test launch, which Musk boasted will happen in the next few months, the world’s largest spaceship will descend toward Earth in free fall and blow up upon impact with a force of a ton of TNT as fuel ignites in a great explosion. On a second and third launch test, Starship will break up in the atmosphere and tumble down and crash-land in a debris field several hundred miles southwest of the island chain.

SpaceX obtained a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial space launch license (experimental permit), rubber-stamped by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) without any consultation of Hawaii’s people because, according to an email I received from the FAA: “No in-person public outreach was conducted in Hawaii as the Starship vehicle was planned to land outside of range for impacts to the residents of Hawaii.”

First of all, that is assuming everything goes exactly according to the plan, which we have all just witnessed doesn’t always happen. If the Starship goes off course by even a few degrees, the consequences could be catastrophic to Hawaii.

Secondly, I think most folks in Hawaii would agree that 62 miles north of Kauai is considered Hawaii culturally if not legally, and that is way too close for what is essentially a rocket bomb to crash-land.

SpaceX was not required to do a full environmental impact study (EIS), but a much-weaker environmental assessment (EA) that only requires the analysis of “nominal operations” or bestcase scenarios. Why was that allowed when the worst-case scenarios are so catastrophic?

In the EA, rather than doing a detailed analysis of the potential impact to marine mammals protected by the Endangered Species Act, NOAA wrote a “Biological Opinion” that argued “less than one” animal would be harmed by a 100 ton steel rocket exploding with the energy of a small nuclear bomb.

It came to that conclusion because it analyzed only one “nominal” scenario in which the rocket hits the water exactly horizontal to the surface with the fuel tanks orientated on top, which is impossible to control or predict. If the explosion is above water, NOAA argues, only a fraction of the energy will be transmitted into the ocean and travel deep enough to harm any of the 30 endangered species of whales, sharks, turtles, monk seals, dolphins and rays in Hawaii.

The EA has many unsubstantiated claims, such as no animals would be near the surface of the water during the crash — even though most are mammals that surface to breathe air.

It ignored the fact that Humpback whales migrate through the target “action area.” It assumed that most of the debris will be large enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean without encountering and injuring animals — but if any does drift into the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, then the Coast Guard would be sent to clean it up.

This alone is reason to contest the EA and demand an EIS since NOAA and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs co-manage Papahanaumokuakea and OHA should have been consulted, but was not.

The FAA and NOAA analyses are flawed, and both are failing in their duty to protect the people of Hawaii from extreme corporate and federal government abuse.

Hawaii must not become collateral damage and a colonized sacrifice zone for the government’s privatization of the space program and a billionaire’s personal ambition and corporate profits.

At minimum, the FAA must suspend the SpaceX license, conduct a full EIS and include the residents of Hawaii in the review process. The best plan is to ban SpaceX from trashing people and planet in Musk’s ego trip to Mars.

ISLAND VOICES

April 29, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | 1 Comment

Environmentalists say Starship failure boosts their concerns

Washington Post, 21 Apr 23

Thursday’s Starship explosion underscored the concerns of the American Bird Conservancy, which has opposed SpaceX’s operations at Boca Chica in South Texas because of the facility’s impacts on wildlife habitat and the species that rely on it, including species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The fiery mishap highlighted in dramatic fashion the risks and the stakes of potential environmental destruction, the group said. Photos showed that the launch itself had sent debris flying across across the launch site and appeared to have damaged the company’s facilities. SpaceX and local officials had enforced a broad keep-out area to ensure no one was threatened by the launch.

“From our point of view, it’s good news it didn’t blow up at the pad site, but future launches could,” said American Bird Conservancy President Michael Parr. The sounds, debris and fires fueled by a crash could all pose risks to wildlife, he said. Had an explosion taken place over the sensitive wetlands, a cleanup would further disturb the environment…………………………………………  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/unmanned-starship-explodes-over-gulf-after-liftoff/ar-AA1a6BtR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=225bf63143754ebc94b3de444cf9de7d&ei=14

April 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

SpaceX launches most powerful rocket in history in explosive debut – like many first liftoffs, Starship’s test was a successful failure

The Conversation, Wendy Whitman Cobb 21 Apr 23

Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University

Starship is almost 400 feet (120 meters) tall and weighs 11 million pounds (4.9 million kilograms). An out-of-control rocket full of highly flammable fuel is a very dangerous object, so to prevent any harm, SpaceX engineers triggered the self-destruct mechanism and blew up the entire rocket over the Gulf of Mexico.

On April 20, 2023, a new SpaceX rocket called Starship exploded over the Gulf of Mexico three minutes into its first flight ever. SpaceX is calling the test launch a success, despite the fiery end result. As a space policy expert, I agree that the “rapid unscheduled disassembly” – the term SpaceX uses when its rockets explode – was a very successful failure.

The most powerful rocket ever built

This launch was the first fully integrated test of SpaceX’s new Starship. Starship is the most powerful rocket ever developed and is designed to be fully reusable. It is made of two different stages, or sections. The first stage, called Super Heavy, is a collection of 33 individual engines and provides more than twice the thrust of a Saturn V, the rocket that sent astronauts to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s.

The first stage is designed to get the rocket to about 40 miles (65 kilometers) above Earth. Once Super Heavy’s job is done, it is supposed to separate from the rest of the craft and land safely back on the surface to be used again. At that point the second stage, called the Starship spacecraft, is supposed to ignite its own engines to carry the payload – whether people, satellites or anything else – into orbit.

An explosive first flight

While parts of Starship have been tested previously, the launch on April 20, 2023, was the first fully integrated test with the Starship spacecraft stacked on top of the Super Heavy rocket. If it had been successful, once the first stage was spent, it would have separated from the upper stage and crashed into the Gulf of Mexico. Starship would then have continued on, eventually crashing 155 miles (250 kilometers) off of Hawaii.

During the SpaceX livestream, the team stated that the primary goal of this mission was to get the rocket off the launch pad. It accomplished that goal and more. Starship flew for more than three minutes, passing through what engineers call “max Q” – the moment at which a rocket experiences the most physical stress from acceleration and air resistance.

According to SpaceX, a few things went wrong with the launch. First, multiple engines went out sometime before the point at which the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy rocket were supposed to separate from each other. The two stages were also unable to separate at the predetermined moment, and with the two stages stuck together, the rocket began to tumble end over end. It is still unclear what specifically caused this failure.

Starship is almost 400 feet (120 meters) tall and weighs 11 million pounds (4.9 million kilograms). An out-of-control rocket full of highly flammable fuel is a very dangerous object, so to prevent any harm, SpaceX engineers triggered the self-destruct mechanism and blew up the entire rocket over the Gulf of Mexico…………………………………… https://theconversation.com/spacex-launches-most-powerful-rocket-in-history-in-explosive-debut-like-many-first-liftoffs-starships-test-was-a-successful-failure-204248

April 22, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

NASA Gets High on Its Nuclear Supply

Why can’t our species sit down, seek some peace and quiet, and sort out our priorities? Consider race, sex, and class injustices. Consider human trafficking, animal trafficking, and habitat loss. Wars and famines. The steady disintegration of the ice caps that keep the nuclear nations physically apart, and keep Earth itself balanced, and watered with the seasons. Shouldn’t these be our preoccupations? Instead, we’re keen to expand the outsized footprint of human commerce and conflict.

BY LEE HALL  https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/16/nasa-gets-high-on-its-nuclear-supply/

NASA’s going nuclear. It was decreed before most of us were born. Back in 1955, the Air Force set out to design a nuclear-propelled stage for an intercontinental ballistic missile at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. In 1958, a few months after the Soviets launched Sputnik, Congress held hearings on Outer Space Propulsion by Nuclear Energy. And the Air Force project was reassigned to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA was founded as “a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of chapter 17 of title 35 of the United States Code.” Its council—including the U.S. President and Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Chair of the Atomic Energy Commission—would forge “cooperative agreements” with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

NASA’s military roots are deep.

Since 1961, NASA has deployed “more than 25 missions carrying a nuclear power system.” Today, the federal Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is making a nuclear fission reactor and rocket for NASA to test in 2027. The Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations aims to replace chemical propellants with nuclear propulsion systems at least three times as efficient, enabling crewed flights to reach Mars.

Chemical propulsion isn’t totally passé. The demo rocket will be nuclear-powered in space, but chemically launched—to limit the potential for an accidental release of radioactive materials on the ground. NIMBY!

In 1961, John F. Kennedy found the perfect aerospace engineer for the U.S. space mission. In 1962, JFK publicly vowed that U.S. Americans would be first to set foot on the moon.

JFK’s pick, Wernher von Braun, had reached the rank of major in Nazi Germany’s Allgemeine SS paramilitary forces, invented the V-2 rockets. These monstrosities were linked to many thousands of deaths—of civilians, soldiers, and concentration camp prisoners who were forced to build Germany’s vengeance weapons./

Historian Michael J. Neufeld found that von Braun was not in charge of assignments or punishments of concentration camp prisoners, but had been in “direct contact with them and with decisions how to deploy them.” While von Braun wasn’t directly killing people, the ruin and loss of others’ lives in the course of the work didn’t seem to trouble the scientist.

In the United States, von Braun designed TV satellites and early intercontinental ballistic missiles. As part of Hermes, General Electric’s missile-making project for the U.S. Army, von Braun helped refurbish V-2s taken from Germany after the war. And von Braun led the Saturn V rocket project that launched Apollo 11, fulfilling JFK’s promise.

The Wrong Stuff

Such is the story of NASA’s formative years. Today, the agency touts its moon missions through “graphic novels and interactive experiences” for young people. Artemis 3, NASA’s first crewed mission since 1972, will feature female and Black astronauts. Take that, Gil Scott-Heron.

The European Space Administration has floated the concept of an international “village” on the moon. NASA’s Artemis Accords allow extraterrestrial mining. Israel has launched a rocket made by Elon Musk’s SpaceX. The governments of China, India, and Russia all have space stations in the works.

As the space domain becomes more contested and congested, the U.S. military Space Force is on display, maintaining Space Domain Awareness. This adolescent language might be laughable, but for the coiled aggression, obscene spending, and the natural resource depletion behind it. It might be laughable, but for the failure of humanity to ensure everyone is housed and fed on Earth. Let them eat interactive experiences?

But here we go, bringing nuclear rockets to Mars.

The Mars Project was written in 1948, and published in 1953. It contained the first technical specification for a crewed Mars flight. Its author was Wernher von Braun. (Per Twitter, the book prophesied that Elon Musk would be involved in a human Mars landing. If von Braun were looking for a 21^st-century protégé, an oft-noted habit of prioritizing production over people could fortify Musk’s candidacy.)

By 1969, von Braun’s designs included nuclear thermal propulsion. Nixon sidelined von Braun’s career. And “nuclear power went out of fashion after the disasters of the 1980s,” says Joshua Frank, author of Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America.

“People had turned on atomic energy, so the industry was coming up with the most ridiculous ideas about what to do with all of its deadly stuff, and there was talk about dumping radioactive waste in space, or on the moon.”

Could the new boosters of nuclear technology resurrect these ridiculous plans, asks Frank, “in order to sidestep the valid concerns that radioactive waste is a poison that lasts millennia? Fortunately, at least for now, it’s simply not cost-effective to rocket nuclear waste to space. If it were, you can bet Elon Musk would be loading up his space fleet today.”

The resurgence of nuclear space projects raises these and many other questions.

To What End?

Jim Reuter of NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate says nuclear thermal propulsion will show our “transportation capability for an Earth-Moon economy.” The economy theme is a popular one. While Toyota develops Lunar Cruisers for NASA crews, Honda has an R&D contract with Japan’s space agency for lunar EVs. Hyundai, Kia, and Boston Robotics are all working on proprietary technologies for lunar robots and vehicles. And so on. A recent Bloomberg article titled Space Startups Are Trying to Make Money Going to the Moon sounds positively moonstruck:

“In the future, private companies could ferry people and cargo to and from the moon, creating a base to conduct science and, eventually, mine resources and even lunar ice as an ingredient to make rocket propellant. It’s a grand vision that could start to take shape this year and eventually lead to a marketplace in which companies could use the lunar environment to turn a profit…”

Anthony Calomino, a NASA research engineer, has said: “It’s important for the United States to remain a primary and dominant player in space. It is the next frontier.”

So, the main reasons for colonizing Space are: (a) because it’s there; (b) fear of missing out; (c) because there’s stuff to extract and profits to be made up there; and (d) because nobody puts a possessive nation of Homo sapiens in the corner.

Curb the Anthropocene

Why can’t our species sit down, seek some peace and quiet, and sort out our priorities? Consider race, sex, and class injustices. Consider human trafficking, animal trafficking, and habitat loss. Wars and famines. The steady disintegration of the ice caps that keep the nuclear nations physically apart, and keep Earth itself balanced, and watered with the seasons. Shouldn’t these be our preoccupations? Instead, we’re keen to expand the outsized footprint of human commerce and conflict.

If living organisms are out there, how will they withstand our acquisitive onslaughts? We lack the standing to colonize other planets. Our penchant for colonizing is, itself, a treacherous flaw. The sensitive among us are beginning to understand, and attempting to remediate, the vast and continuing harm done by the colonial mindset.

Meanwhile, humanity relentlessly drives other species and the climate itself past the brink of breakdown. If there were ever a time to “leave no trace” on nature, it’s now—on Earth and beyond.

Lee Hall holds an LL.M. in environmental law with a focus on climate change, and has taught law as an adjunct at Rutgers–Newark and at Widener–Delaware Law. Lee is an author, public speaker, and creator of the Studio for the Art of Animal Liberation on Patreon.

February 18, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Another sign of madness? – thermonuclear propulsion technology to power a rocket to Mars. 

Signs of madness? — Beyond Nuclear International

Decisions on nuclear future are guided by myths.

By Linda Pentz Gunter 12 Feb 23

“………………………………………………………….  a sign of some kind of madness?

A few weeks later, that same presentiment [about the UK government] was re-evoked on reading a headline in the print edition of the Washington Post: US works on nuclear-powered rocket.

This is not an entirely new story, but an update on the plan to use thermonuclear propulsion technology to power a rocket to Mars. 

There are so many things wrong with this. The premise is that not using a nuclear reactor to power the rocket will mean it will just be too tediously slow for human passengers to endure — a journey of seven months. With the reactor on board speeding the rocket on its way, the journey to Mars could be cut to what? A mere three and a half months. Not tedious at all!

Never mind that rockets have a nasty habit of sometimes exploding on the launch pad. And never mind that do we REALLY need to spend billions of dollars right now trying to get maybe three astronauts to Mars when we have a planet called Earth that desperately needs every dime and dollar available to save it?

The announcement was replete with the usual illogicalities. Sending astronauts on that seven-month journey to Mars in a traditional rocket was “dangerous” as “the radiation levels on a Mars mission could expose astronauts to radiation levels more than 100 times greater than on Earth.” Much better to send them there on a rocket powered by a nuclear reactor!

There is another agenda afoot here, of course, and it’s a military one and the sinister battle for who controls space. 

If you thought shooting down the Chinese spy balloon was exciting, that was child’s play compared to what is planned for NASA’s nuclear reactors in space. 

This includes being able to power satellites to become more agile in maneuvering away from “enemy” satellites. Using nuclear propulsion will achieve that, but what other consequences might result from a host of nuclear powered satellites buzzing around in space? It’s no surprise that the Space Force, created for war-fighting in space, is involved in all this.

And of course, apparently taking its cue from the mess we have already created on Earth, NASA wants to place nuclear reactors on the Moon as a power source. But for who or what exactly? Will we plant the US flag there while we are at it and claim a new military and strategic frontier? The signs are ominous. 

And what about all the radioactive waste? Will we be boring deep holes in the Moon to bury it, or will we simply jettison it further into deep space? It’s bad enough that the oceans are already our dustbin. Now Space is to be our new nuclear waste frontier.

While all this was going on, evidence from yet more research poured in about how completely unnecessary it is to use nuclear power for anything, now or in the future. 

Looking at every kind of power demand including energy consumption, electric vehicles, and commercial transport, then applying solar, wind, nuclear, heat pumps, storage and other technology, nuclear power was repeatedly eliminated from the mix for increasing costs without increasing reliability.

And yet, governments here and in far too many other parts of the world press on inexorably with plans to continue the use of nuclear power or develop new nuclear programs. 

Despite all the evidence that this is —  to understate it  — a Very Bad Idea.  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/02/12/signs-of-madness/

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.

February 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

NASA and DARPA are working on a nuclear-powered rocket that could go to Mars

The technology would also have significant national security implications

Washington Post By Christian Davenport, February 3, 2023

“……………………………………… If NASA’s going to get to Mars, it needs to find a way to get there much faster. Which is one of the reasons it said last week that it is partnering with the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on development of thermonuclear propulsion technology.

………………. DARPA, the arm of the Defense Department that seeks to develop transformative technologies, has been working on the program since 2021, when it awarded three contracts for the first phase of the program to General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin, the space company founded by Jeff Bezos. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.) A nuclear-powered rocket would use a nuclear reactor to heat propellant to extreme temperatures before shooting the fuel through a nozzle to produce thrust.

………………….. The program is called DRACO, for Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar (or in the vicinity of the moon) Operation……………………..

The agencies hope they’ll be ready to demonstrate their work with a spaceflight in 2027.

NASA is also working with the Department of Energy on a separate project to develop a nuclear power plant that could be used on the moon and perhaps one day on Mars.

But getting to Mars is exceedingly difficult, and despite claims from NASA for years that it was gearing up to send astronauts there, the agency is nowhere close to achieving that goal.

One of the main obstacles is the distance. Earth and Mars are only on the same side of the sun every 26 months. But even at their closest points, a spacecraft would have to follow an elliptical orbit around the sun that, as Tory Bruno, the CEO of the United Launch Alliance, wrote in a recent essay, will require “a great sweeping arc of around 300 million miles to arrive.”

……………………………. . The need for spacecraft that can maneuver away from the enemy has become clear during the war in Ukraine.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/03/nuclear-rocket-darpa-nasa/

February 5, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment