ONE SMALL STEP . . .

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It's hardly rocket science. You posted that you'd love to go on the first manned mission to Mars. Then BillRM posted a link to Wikipedia, after that I posted my response to you. Then it's (on my screen at least) user ignored. If I run my cursor over it, it says JTT.

In any event the only poster between your post and my reply is BillRM.

I can't believe you really need it spelling out like this. Is this what you're like in real life? No wonder you have to tip big.

The perils of ignore.

"I demand my god given right to remain as ignorant as is humanly possible."

I can't begin to imagine what Finn's reply to you might be. Smile

Why would a grown man Rolling Eyes

go to the lengths you've gone in this post to illustrate the number of things you have illustrated about yourself.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Theres another thread called "The Fermi Pardox", which, as all good threads go tht aren't ttacked by idiots like JTT, deviated to a discussion that was about actually achieving NEO for the purposes of "Staging". We had several POVs, NONE of which got focused on using any kind of rocket power (except as a taxi to get astronauts up to a space vehicle being constructed in space , the materiel , for

which, would have been ferried up by a space "elevator" or Loftos "Loops" or using things like rail guns for exiting materiel to a Langrange point (in small amounts since these things are quite powerful).
The use of rockets at all (especially nuclear ones) may be a "flint knapped tool"

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Actually, the "Duffy' cut" deaths were the result of cholera epidemic among the Irish workers and their families (It was a bad example on my behqlf, sorry).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I do not think that we will be using any kind of Nuclear Rockets to go from earth to NEO. Ion propulsion and sub critical nuke engines can result in a slow but steady accelertion to about 25%(c) which would make the outer plnets doable and, with some additional new "Loopholes" in Physics maybe we could achieve a faster acceleration to 0.5 or better (c)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

which, would have been ferried up by a space "elevator" or Loftos "Loops" or using things like rail guns for exiting materiel to a Langrange point (in small amounts since these things are quite powerful).
The use of rockets at all (especially nuclear ones) may be a "flint knapped tool"

You need to achieved the flint tool before you can get to the point that you can go to Sears and buy with a credit card a tool steel ax...... Drunk

Space elevators and so on are great concepts but in order to have either the resources or the technology to design and build such things you need to have a large space going culture for generations able to move meg tons of mass around the solar system.

You can not side step the flint knife step in any technology.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

and you consider "earth to NEO" NUKE ROCKETS that technology?
We don't share the same views.

WHY is it, when people disagree with passion is it necessary to post the "Drunkie" emoticon?? Are you trying to say that Im drunk because I don't agree with you?
If you cant insult someone with clever language, merely posting some dumass cartoon of a smiley face with a bottle just doesn't help you appear any smarter IMHO.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

and you consider "earth to NEO" NUKE ROCKETS that technology?
We don't share the same views.

That I know however it is still my position that to get off this planet in a meaning full way and began to tap the resources of the solar system we will need to used such brute force means as nuclear rockets to start with and run the risks of doing so.

A beanstalk to orbit is a wonder concept but it means being able to move a large asteroid mass into a stable earth orbit to act as an anchor just to start with.

See Arthur c Clarke wonderful novel the Fountains of Paradise dealing with creating such a beanstalk.

All the others things you had mention, in my opinion, would also take a large in space infrastructure in place to do.

Next I was not attempting to insult you and I am sorry you took it that way.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Would it not be wonderful if we would find something like the Dean Drive to solve the problem of cheap access to space?

But baring that the only way to get off this planet in a meaningful manner is to used the few means that our technology currently support.

Once more I can only hope that a player like Chine that is not block from taking risks will do so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

so you think that using nuke rockets from the earth would NOT require a huge infrastructure?
MAy I remind you of a small venture called the "Manhattan Project" that involved nothing less than several armed and secured facilities in 13 states, several govt agencies, BLM, the ARmy , and hosts of universities to pump out 3 measly little bombs?.
Doingsome nuke space rockets would require probably, a spaceport on some isolated island chain that, should the damn things blow up, it could be more easily contained.

PS, what would a nuke rocket even look like for earth to NEO?
would it be shielded? would it be steam powered?.
Im going to go nd look up some of the nuke plane ideas

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

so you think that using nuke rockets from the earth would NOT require a huge infrastructure?

Such earth base infrastructures able support a nuke rocket exist on earth no such infrastructure however exist or can be created in space for such projects as a beanstalk until we can get very cheap access to space.

Quote:

PS, what would a nuke rocket even look like for earth to NEO?
would it be shielded? would it be steam powered?.

US government programs with some of the best nuclear engineers of the time in the 1960s have designs of what a push plate nuke rocket would look like and even models using non nuclear explosives was flown showing that such design would be stable.

There are even videos of the model flying on the net.

For more details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Tiny model being flown.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I woner why they never moved forward with the idea? Could it be safety nd shielding weight?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

woner why they never moved forward with the idea? Could it be safety nd shielding weight?

Test ban treaty and the decision to spend the resources on a convention space program and also some concerns about upsetting the balance of power in the middle of the cold war by introducing such a wild card.

The tiny bombs/devices that was to be used on the Orion program was fairly clean and you could run a fairly large program for a decade and come no where near the amount of radioactive released into the atmosphere that one open atmosphere test released in the La Vegas area at the time.

There was no issue of shielding the crews as mass was no problem when you are talking about a vehicle that could lift a few thousands tons into orbit.

An of course nuclear devices are inherently far safer from going off by accident then are conventions explosives.

I remember reading that one accident took out a large percent of the Russian launch site with a convention explosion at the low end of a nuclear weapon yield.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The "nuclear device" that would power a rocket would have to be "ON" from tart-up. The issue of Exploion isn't so much the concern s is a plummet to earth, a normal explosion nd a large "Dirty bomb" type of payload that would spred the nuke all over the place (Sort like at the Nevada Test Site).

If you research the timeline on several of the US and Soviet nuke airplane and rocket programs, the issue of hielding and its added weight to power ratio made conventional fuels seem waay more feasible.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The "nuclear device" that would power a rocket would have to be "ON" from tart-up

There is no one nuclear device just a few hundreds/thousands or so tiny nuclear devices/bombs with the means to place them one at a time behind the pusher plate.

Assuming those tiny devices have gun type triggers then all you would need to have is a metal block that would not be removed from the device until a few mill-seconds before being use.

The whole magazine of devices would not be "ON".

Quote:

the issue of hielding and its added weight to power ratio made conventional fuels seem waay more feasible.

This system does not have the kind of overhead that a reactor system would have with far far far more power then any reactor system could put out.

Next the very heavy pusher plate that you would be needing in any case would likely do most of the shielding and then you just place the thousands of tons of cargo between the rear and the crew for added shielding.

At home somewhere I have a book that contain most of the unclassified engineering details.

I will see if I can find it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

yes but why did they abandon it? shielding was the big issue. it was a dirty bomb

0 Replies

@BillRM,

your "tiny model clip ' was that a nuke? I doubt it
"Nuke" rockets from earth is just a bad application of an inappropriate technology. I think you are reading stuff from the 50's an 60's.

2 Replies

Isn't there some drawing board proposal for literally hurling payloads to the moon? Thought I read something like that once.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

your "tiny model clip ' was that a nuke?

I am damn sure that I stated that the model was power with convention explosions and just was a demo of such a rocket being stable in flight. See below

Quote:

even models using non nuclear explosives was flown showing that such design would be stable.

Quote:

I think you are reading stuff from the 50's an 60's

LOL not all ideas from the 50s or 60s are invalid in the year 2014. In fact a lot of studies had been done over the decades using ever more powerful computer modeling of the concept and no show stoppers had been found.

It is still the only means known that even in theory, with our current technology that could get tens of thousands of tons payloads off the earth and into space.

One such space ship could land enough cargo on Mars to set up a small colony
directly from the surface of the earth in one trip.

Yes, I know the emotional resistant for using any technology that would employed that level of sheer brute force nuclear power that why I am hoping someone like the Chinese will employ it as surely the West will not.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Isn't there some drawing board proposal for literally hurling payloads to the moon? Thought I read something like that once.

See Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

1 Reply

ONE SMALL STEP . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know