|
if you have a spaceship powered by nuclear bombs then you don't really have to listen to anybodies complaints. it's their problem, not yours.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:People would throw a shitfit about the fallout. Although I read about one plan to mitigate that by using a huge pile of conventional explosives to get the thing away from the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:I mean the only difference between explosions and combustion is detonation speed; rockets are pretty much already doing what you'd consider to be conventional explosives Sadly, the N1 failure is no longer considered the largest non‐nuclear explosion in history. Still, it made a good showing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Oh, Project Orion, the third-least environmentally friendly propulsion system  (2 is Pluto, 1 is NSWR)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Nuclear salt-water rockets probably outrank dimethylmercury propellant as an insane rocket design, and that's saying something. The only thing keeping them from securing that spot is that no one ever got the OK to build one 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Sadly, the N1 failure is no longer considered the largest non‐nuclear explosion in history. Hell, it wasn't even the largest at the time. It was exceeded by, among other things, the Heligoland "British Bang" experiment. quote:. On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6,700 tonnes of explosives ("Big Bang" or "British Bang"), creating one of the biggest single non-nuclear detonations in history.[25] Though the attack was aimed at the fortifications, the island's total destruction would have been accepted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Hell, it wasn't even the largest at the time. It was exceeded by, among other things, the Heligoland "British Bang" experiment. Yeah but many people were quoting bad figures for N1. E.g.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
You know, for some reason I'd never read up on nuclear salt-water rockets. For some reason I assumed they were another nuclear-thermal rocket design, using common salt water for whatever reason as the propellant. But I couldn't understand why that would be so crazy, according to your ranking. Now I've read about the basic design. And I understand. You know that thing where chimpanzees grin not because they're happy, but because they're scared and that's how primates show off their teeth to the scary thing? That's what I'm doing right now. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
NSWRs rule and we should build one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:People would throw a shitfit about the fallout. Although I read about one plan to mitigate that by using a huge pile of conventional explosives to get the thing away from the ground. What fallout? Look at the Orion Gun. It's all self contained in geologically stable bedrock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:I mean the only difference between explosions and combustion is detonation speed; rockets are pretty much already doing what you'd consider to be conventional explosives An explosion is just a sudden expansion and release of energy. Doesn't even need to be a chemical reaction. Heat up a tank of compressed gas sufficiently, it'll explode. What you're thinking of is the difference between deflagration and detonation. In the former, the reaction is propagated subsonically via conductive heating of the adjacent material. In the latter, it is propagated supersonically via compressive heating of the adjacent material. Even deflagrants can explode just fine in the right circumstances. A pipe bomb sure as hell explodes, even though it doesn't detonate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Phy posted:You know, for some reason I'd never read up on nuclear salt-water rockets. I just had to look it up now. Found this charming description via the Wikipedia page. It's full of great quotes: Nuke Your Way to the Stars posted:Zubrin's nuclear salt water rocket (NSWR) [...] requires only minor extrapolations from the mature technology of existing nuclear power systems and could probably be implemented for prototype testing in a very short time. Writing the environmental impact statement for such tests, however, might present an interesting problem, because Zubrin's scheme vents highly radioactive nuclear fission products directly into space. I can imagine! Not many technologies where the impact of a successful test looks more like a catastrophic failure or nuclear disaster. Nuke Your Way to the Stars posted:If the right fuel velocity is chosen, the thermal neutron flux (and therefore the site of maximum fission energy release) can be made to peak very sharply just outside the exit end of the cylindrical reaction chamber. So your rocket is sitting on an ongoing nuclear explosion, with only your precise control of the fuel feed velocity keeping that explosion behind your spacecraft, as opposed to inside it. This thing owns 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Anta posted:
Venting radioactive material into space is like pissing into the ocean. The whole solar system is full of radioactive material in the form of the solar wind. The exhaust from a NSWR would be traveling comfortably faster than solar escape velocity, so as long as you didn't point the tail end in the direction of any people, it would be a total non-concern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Venting radioactive material into space is like pissing into the ocean. The whole solar system is full of radioactive material in the form of the solar wind. The exhaust from a NSWR would be traveling comfortably faster than solar escape velocity, so as long as you didn't point the tail end in the direction of any people, it would be a total non-concern. Uh, yeah. I was talking about atmospheric/ground tests. I guess I didn't make that clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
quote:The design and calculations discussed above are using 20 percent enriched Uranium salts, however, it would be plausible to use another design which would be capable of achieving much higher exhaust velocities (4,700 km/s) and use 2,700 tonnes of highly enriched uranium salts in water to propel a 300 tonne spacecraft up to 3.6% of the speed of light. Correct me if I'm wrong but at 4,700 km/s a 60 second burn would get you to Mars in ~54 hours, right? That just seems... vulgar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
Exhaust velocity, but you need to match the momentum of your exhaust with the momentum of your significantly more massive vessel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
No. Your exhaust particles travel at 4700 km per second. You don’t, or at least not till you throw a lot of exhaust behind you. e:f;b
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:What fallout? Look at the Orion Gun. It's all self contained in geologically stable bedrock. I think he thought you meant "use an Orion ship as a heavy lifter instead of chemical rockets" since Orion was what the thread had been discussing, and not that you were starting on a tangent about gun-type launchers. Your post was a little unclear on that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
Well, it doesn't get "you" to Mars, unless by "you" you mean "a fine red-pink paste lining your ruined acceleration couches".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Nah, just use the cruciforms and you'll be fine. What's the worst that could happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Marcade posted:Nah, just use the cruciforms and you'll be fine. What's the worst that could happen? Galaxy-wide faux-religious oppression, for a start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 02:16
|
|
we could just capture a comet and stick a reactor down the middle 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Phy posted:I think he thought you meant "use an Orion ship as a heavy lifter instead of chemical rockets" since Orion was what the thread had been discussing, and not that you were starting on a tangent about gun-type launchers. Your post was a little unclear on that point. Look, all I'm saying is, let's shoot multiple tons of metals into the orbit using controlled and contained nuclear explosions. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Look, all I'm saying is, let's shoot multiple tons of metals into the orbit using controlled and contained nuclear explosions. That's all. So much for the tolerant lift.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
And anything in the payload is now a thin, nigh monomolecular film. Doubly so during the retroburn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Double Punctuation posted:So much for the tolerant lift. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:What fallout? Look at the Orion Gun. It's all self contained in geologically stable bedrock. How about launching from the sea?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:... as long as you didn't point the tail end in the direction of any people, it would be a total non-concern. Good thing humans have always had leaders that would never think of using a giant radioactive spray gun as a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Good thing humans have always had leaders that would never think of using a giant radioactive spray gun as a weapon. Jizzing people to death is at least an elegant metaphor for nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Good thing humans have always had leaders that would never think of using a giant radioactive spray gun as a weapon. Any engine is a weapon that's destructive in proportion to its usefulness as an engine. If you want something capable of interstellar or even rapid interplanetary travel, you're going to wind up with something that has strategic implications because you can use it to kill a bunch of people and break poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Any engine is a weapon that's destructive in proportion to its usefulness as an engine. If you want something capable of interstellar or even rapid interplanetary travel, you're going to wind up with something that has strategic implications because you can use it to kill a bunch of people and break poo poo. Larry Niven's "Kzinti Lesson", if anyone hasn't come across those stories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
The quickest way for us to develop Inter-stellar travel, would be for some alien race to be all " we're gonna kick your rear end!" Maybe fly by and knock our moon flags over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:The quickest way for us to develop Inter-stellar travel, would be for some alien race to be all " we're gonna kick your rear end!" Reminds of that tumblr pic floating around with the flag on the moon and somebody wondering what would happen if China just knocked the flag down, and the response was something like "lol if you don't think America wouldn't spend a billion dollars just to send somebody up to stand it back up."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Might as well replace them while the guy is up there, the moon flags were off the shelf flags not suited to taking solar rays constantly, so they've probably bleached pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Might as well replace them while the guy is up there, the moon flags were off the shelf flags not suited to taking solar rays constantly, so they've probably bleached pretty badly. Might as well, since yeah, they're probably drat near bleached white by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Yeah, even China knocking it over won’t push America into spending billions to replace a pure white flag with a coloured one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Yeah, even China knocking it over won’t push America into spending billions to replace a pure white flag with a coloured one. The hell we'd put a British flag up there 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:a coloured one. African American
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
I recall reading that all the flags are faded to white by now. And Apollo 11's flag fell over from the engine wash when the LM took off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Randaconda posted:Reminds of that tumblr pic floating around with the flag on the moon and somebody wondering what would happen if China just knocked the flag down, and the response was something like "lol if you don't think America wouldn't spend a billion dollars just to send somebody up to stand it back up."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 19:02
|
|
