Jump to content

More space news!


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

Re: More space news!

 

To answer the Original question:

That's really slow. Is there a known upper limit for proven(i.e.' date=' stuff that's actually been used before) propulsion tech, and then a probable upper limit for known tech(stuff we kinda sorta know how to build but maybe haven't fully fielded yet)? Do either of these come remotely close to even .001 c?(i.e., 1/1000 of light speed).[/quote']

According to the studies that were made, the Nuclear Pulse Propulsion can do more than just .0001 c. A lot more:

"Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved by a thermonuclear (meant is fusion) Orion starship, assuming no fuel is saved for slowing back down, is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c).[2] An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light. In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the max. speed.

At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2). At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.[13]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: More space news!

 

Would we want there to be?

 

36 days to reach 0.1c is pretty good. What are we doing for deceleration at the far end? Solar sail?

The figures that I cited are for "acceleration only" flights. The kind that you would use for probes or a asteroid deflection mission (note that those could also take more acceleration, about 25-50 what a human mission could do).

 

If you want the figures for "accelerate, turn around, decellerate" flights you have to halve the top speed (as you need literally have the fuel for braking).

 

The main problem with fuel efficiency is that we can't use most of the force a fission bomb produces (without killing the passengers), but we also can't build bombs smaler than what is proposed (it's the minimum critical mass - any less and there is not going to be a explosion for acceptable cost). The higher top speed of pure fusion* or antimater bombs comes not from higher yield, but that they could be built a lot smaller.

Of course building it bigger/heavier also increases fuel efficiency (as unlogical as it sounds at first).

 

*Tsar Bomb and all other "fusion bombs" use a conventional Fission Bomb as detonator, so they won't help us in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: More space news!

 

Would we want there to be?

 

If we'd detected the appropriate Gamma pulses it'd be pretty clear evidence of intelligent life fairly close to us.

 

36 days to reach 0.1c is pretty good. What are we doing for deceleration at the far end? Solar sail?

Yeah, it's a pretty zippy drive system. There are a lot of issues that'd need to be worked out, but the payload and speed of an Orion ship makes it worth contemplation

 

Edit: with a second glance, I mighta missed some nuance in your question there, Old Man. I guess no signs of NPP in nearby space means very little chance of us getting Footfalled, on the brighter side of the coin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: More space news!

 

If we'd detected the appropriate Gamma pulses it'd be pretty clear evidence of intelligent life fairly close to us.

 

Yeah, it's a pretty zippy drive system. There are a lot of issues that'd need to be worked out, but the payload and speed of an Orion ship makes it worth contemplation

 

Edit: with a second glance, I mighta missed some nuance in your question there, Old Man. I guess no signs of NPP in nearby space means very little chance of us getting Footfalled, on the brighter side of the coin

I would not count on it. A large part of the travel is just letting the momentum carry you. And with only 1-2 months to deceleration we could be surprised.

 

Also noticing a shaped, minimum yield nuclear explosion in the vastness of space is not that easily. We have difficulty even noticing the gama and x-ray burst of supernovas. And those are a lot brighter. Without an atmosphere to ignite even the visible light might be rather moderate.

 

Huh. I thought Orion was plug-pulled upon. Seems like I was mistaken!

No, that is a totally different Orion Project.

 

We talk about the Nulcear Pulse Propulsion Orion.

 

The Orion Crew Capsule was afaik named to get the name away from "riding on atom bombs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...