|
Post by lunatic on Aug 12, 2006 3:24:04 GMT -4
Any one heard of any projects or had any good ideas for new systems of propulsion other than chemical rockets.
I used to like the idea of the nuclear pulse engine, some guy proposed in the sixties launching a 100 ton pay load into space, not too sure what the side effects may. Any one know much about this?
It would still be woefully inadequate to reach our neighbouring stars. Have any of you any information on any other more sci fi type theories, like warp drives, worm holes or folding space that you would like to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 14, 2006 3:29:14 GMT -4
The nuclear pulse engine was called Orion, and was abandonned after the nuclear test ban treaty.
The are a number of ideas for interstellar propulsion, such as a fusion pulse rocket (possibly the most feasible with current technology), sails to be pushed from gigantic banks of lasers or microwave transmitters, ramjets using the interstellar medium (possibly not feasible) and anti-matter rockets. The problem with warp drives, etc, or somehow using the vacuum energy, is that no-one can give the idea a good basis in physics, never mind the technology.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 14, 2006 9:01:25 GMT -4
NASA used to fund the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program for just such research. The thing all the technologies had in common is that no one had any solid idea how to make them work, and they had at best highly speculative theoretical support. My personal favorite is Harry Harrison's Bloater Drive, which doesn't actually move the ship through space, but merely expands it until one end is where you want to go. Then the ship shrinks from the other end until the rest of the ship is there.
|
|
|
Post by lunatic on Sept 14, 2006 0:18:34 GMT -4
Do any of you know why they banned the use of nuclear power system in space?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 14, 2006 0:24:49 GMT -4
The Orion Drive basically worked by detonating an atom bomb behind it. Part of the treaty was a ban on detonating nukes in space as well as on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by lunatic on Sept 14, 2006 1:01:30 GMT -4
I know they agreed to banned testing (didn't the Pakistanis test one on earth a few years back) but why ban nuclear testing in space?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 14, 2006 3:24:45 GMT -4
Have a look here: www.ctbto.org/Essentially, it's a ban on any nuclear detonation, be it weapon or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lunatic on Sept 14, 2006 3:31:00 GMT -4
yes I understand that but why?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 14, 2006 6:59:52 GMT -4
Nuclear detonations make people nervous, for some reason. Can't fathom why.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 14, 2006 12:04:56 GMT -4
People are unreasonably affraid of anything radioactive, frankly. That's why the Apollo Hoaxers get so much mileage out of their claims that the astronauts couldn't possibly have survived without thick lead shielding - because people are scared of radiation without really understanding it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 14, 2006 14:38:12 GMT -4
Well, I think it's a bit more reasonable to be alarmed by the idea of the detonation of a nuclear bomb over your head. While odds are enormously good that you're safe, that the thing won't detonate at a level where it will harm you, "enormously good" and "100%" aren't the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 14, 2006 15:21:14 GMT -4
Some people have doubts about the safety of lifting large amounts of nuclear fuel into space on very complex machines that occasionally blow up, with the risk of spreading the material into the environment. Overcoming the politics accompanying the fear to get approval is not easy.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 14, 2006 17:15:04 GMT -4
Yes, recall the protests about such things as Cassini, which had on board a small nuclear generator that was not fissionable and was encased in a container designed specifically to survive the complete destruction of the fully fuelled launch vehicle on the pad, or even re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere and subsequent impact without releasing radioactive material.
Now try and convince those people that launching a bona fide nuclear bomb is safe...
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 14, 2006 17:33:32 GMT -4
Or in the case of Orion, launching a bona fide nuclear bomb into orbit by setting off 200 others underneath it ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 14, 2006 18:26:45 GMT -4
I know they agreed to banned testing (didn't the Pakistanis test one on earth a few years back) but why ban nuclear testing in space?This is the relevant section of the text of the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. Anything else I expect you'll have to ask the authors of the treaty 1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:
(a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or
(b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted. It is understood in this connection that the provisions of this subparagraph are without prejudice to the conclusion of a Treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosions, including all such explosions underground, the conclusion of which, as the Parties have stated in the Preamble to this Treaty, they seek to achieve.the entire treaty can be found hereThis treaty involved only 3 parties, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A futher UN Comprehesive Test Ban Treaty in the 90's included 44 countries. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, and Viet Nam. Of these the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan and India are yet to sign it. China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, and the United States of America have signed it, but are yet to ratify it. It won't take effect until all 44 countries have signed and ratified it. This is why Pakistan and India were able to test, because they haven't signed the CTBT.
|
|