Meteore hits Russian City.

[eyeball]

Gas Giants provide excellent filling stations to the stars.

Yes, once you're IN space but....never mind.

True. That's why I said we've theoretically had the ability to do so. We have the technology. We just are unable to test the nuke propulsion design.

In space? That's hilarious. As for using nukes to launch nuclear bombs into space, that's even more hilarious.

Nuke it up there, like I said.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, once you're IN space but....never mind.

Hydrogen and oxygen are freely available on Earth and make an excellent rocket fuel. Though often, hypergolic types of fuels are used even though they are really unsafe. Kerosene is the other common fuel.

In space? That's hilarious. As for using nukes to launch nuclear bombs into space, that's even more hilarious.

Not sure bombs were mentioned re: putting into orbit. But, the big advantage of a nuclear powered rocket is that you need no oxidizer saving tons of weight and oodles of space. It needn't be used to launch the craft/payload/whatever into orbit.

[CPCFTW]

In space? That's hilarious. As for using nukes to launch nuclear bombs into space, that's even more hilarious.

Why is that hilarious? That's the design. Or are you claiming you're smarter than NASA scientists?

FWIW the nukes were very small (0.15 kt)

The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 12 to 19 mi/s (19 to 31 km/s) in typical interplanetary designs, with meganewtons of thrust.^[4] Many spacecraft propulsion drives can achieve one of these or the other, but nuclear pulse rockets are the only proposed technology that could potentially meet the extreme power requirements to deliver both at once (see spacecraft propulsion for more speculative systems).

Specific impulse (Isp) measures how much thrust can be derived from a given mass of fuel, and is a standard figure of merit for rocketry. For any rocket propulsion, since the kinetic energy of exhaust goes up with velocity squared (kinetic energy = ½ mv²), whereas the momentum and thrust goes up with velocity linearly (momentum = mv), obtaining a particular level of thrust (as in a number of gacceleration) requires far more power each time that exhaust velocity and specific impulse (Isp) is much increased in a design goal. (For instance, the most fundamental reason that current and proposedelectric propulsion systems of high Isp tend to be low thrust is due to their limits on available power. Their thrust is actually inversely proportional to Isp if power going into exhaust is constant or at its limit from heat dissipation needs or other engineering constraints).^[5] The Orion concept detonates nuclear explosions externally at a rate of power release which is beyond what nuclear reactors could survive internally with known materials and design.

Since weight is no limitation, an Orion craft can be extremely robust. An unmanned craft could tolerate very large accelerations, perhaps 100 g. A human-crewed Orion, however, must use some sort of damping system behind the pusher plate to smooth the instantaneous acceleration to a level that humans can comfortably withstand – typically about 2 to 4 g.

The smaller the bomb, the smaller each impulse will be, so the higher the rate of impulses and more than will be needed to achieve orbit. Smaller impulses also mean less g shock on the pusher plate and less need for damping to smooth out the acceleration.

The optimal Orion drive bomblet yield (for the human crewed 4,000 ton reference design) was calculated to be in the region of 0.15 kt, with approx 800 bombs needed to orbit and a bomb rate of approx 1 per second.

http://en.wikipedia....ear_propulsion)

Edited February 19, 2013 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

He's right though. The science and technology may all well be sound, but Orion never did and never will get off the ground. The politics of nuclear technology prevents it. As someone involved in the relevant science and industry, I can say that the bureaucratic and political obstacles to trying to get something like that to be approved are damn near insurmountable. Even if humanity faced an extinction level threat from an incoming asteroid that could only be stopped with an Orion-type spacecraft, we might just doom ourselves to extinction with the shear amount of red tape.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Bonam

[CPCFTW]

He's right though. The science and technology may all well be sound, but Orion never did and never will get off the ground. The politics of nuclear technology prevents it. As someone involved in the relevant science and industry, I can say that the bureaucratic and political obstacles to trying to get something like that to be approved are damn near insurmountable. Even if humanity faced an extinction level threat from an incoming asteroid that could only be stopped with an Orion-type spacecraft, we might just doom ourselves to extinction with the shear amount of red tape.

I doubt that. Most of the eco-nuts would turn pro-nuclear very quickly if extinction of the human race was impending. The partial test ban treaty would be shredded pretty quickly too.

Anyway, the point is that "the 1%" did not "co-opt our small window to launch ourselves into space". We've always had the means, just not the will.

When the resources on Earth do eventually become too scarce, asteroid mining will become economical. That will probably be the catalyst to a space age.

Edited February 19, 2013 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

I doubt that. Most of the eco-nuts would turn pro-nuclear very quickly if extinction of the human race was impending. The partial test ban treaty would be shredded pretty quickly too.

Doubt it. The "eco-nuts" DO believe that the extinction of the human race is impending (due to global warming), that's kind of their whole point. And yet they do not endorse nuclear energy anyway, despite its ability to produce all the energy we need without any CO2 emissions.

[eyeball]

I doubt that. Most of the eco-nuts would turn pro-nuclear very quickly if extinction of the human race was impending. The partial test ban treaty would be shredded pretty quickly too.

Even if it was as impending as next year there is no way on Earth national governments could ever get their shit together in time. They are simply to incompetent.

Anyway, the point is that "the 1%" did not "co-opt our small window to launch ourselves into space". We've always had the means, just not the will.

They didn't co-opt it all on their own most needed lots of inside help - and yes 'had the means' as in past tense. As for the will, I think it's been a lot closer to the surface than you think but of everything that's been squandered these last 40 years, the loss of willingness is the most lamentable.

When the resources on Earth do eventually become too scarce, asteroid mining will become economical. That will probably be the catalyst to a space age.

Yeah right...there's always some mythical innovator showing up at the last second - demand and supply, right? Some economic-nuts will believe anything.

In the mean time it's costing NASA 500 million a kilo to bring back a piece of asteroid. Not a chunk of gold mind you, just a plain old piece of chondrite.

[eyeball]

Doubt it. The "eco-nuts" DO believe that the extinction of the human race is impending (due to global warming), that's kind of their whole point. And yet they do not endorse nuclear energy anyway, despite its ability to produce all the energy we need without any CO2 emissions.

Well, speaking for myself, what can't be endorsed is the veracity of the people regulating nuclear power plant operations. As far as I'm concerned the biggest contributor to our extinction bar none will be, in a word, corruption.

[Guest]

Well, speaking for myself, what can't be endorsed is the veracity of the people regulating nuclear power plant operations. As far as I'm concerned the biggest contributor to our extinction bar none will be, in a word, corruption.

I'm betting on the antibiotic resistant virus...

[DogOnPorch]

He's right though. The science and technology may all well be sound, but Orion never did and never will get off the ground. The politics of nuclear technology prevents it. As someone involved in the relevant science and industry, I can say that the bureaucratic and political obstacles to trying to get something like that to be approved are damn near insurmountable. Even if humanity faced an extinction level threat from an incoming asteroid that could only be stopped with an Orion-type spacecraft, we might just doom ourselves to extinction with the shear amount of red tape.

True, you wouldn't want a booster powered by NERVA type engines glowing-up the atmosphere. I believe the original vision was to build a craft in orbit that could do Mars in reasonable time. Not shabby for the late 60s.

[eyeball]

The politics of nuclear technology prevents it.

Politics brought on by overwhelming evidence of misgovernance. Instead of contemptuously dismissing and sneering at people's concerns advocates should have been coming up with better ways to contain the corruption and incompetence of the people regulating the industrial use of their beloved technology. They have no one to blame but themselves for the state of affairs nuclear technology finds itself in.

[eyeball]

True, you wouldn't want a booster powered by NERVA type engines glowing-up the atmosphere. I believe the original vision was to build a craft in orbit that could do Mars in reasonable time. Not shabby for the late 60s.

It would have been a beautiful thing but you don't figure the politics of launching nuclear bombs into space during the 60's would have prevented it? Blaming eco-nuts seems a little revisionist.

[DogOnPorch]

It doesn't use 'bombs'. Liquid hydrogen.

[GostHacked]

When the resources on Earth do eventually become too scarce, asteroid mining will become economical. That will probably be the catalyst to a space age.

Not so much economical as necessary for the human race to continue. But that also means there are people out there who would help the human race as long as they can make a lot of money off it. If/when the resources run out, money is the last thing on people's minds (hopefully).

[GostHacked]

It would have been a beautiful thing but you don't figure the politics of launching nuclear bombs into space during the 60's would have prevented it? Blaming eco-nuts seems a little revisionist.

The ion drive has been tested and proven to be a game changer. Slow acceleration, but steady and more efficient than nuclear and with only a fraction of the fuel needed for operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster very promising.

[DogOnPorch]

Ion drives have super specific impulse but rotten thrust. It would take a VERY long time to reach escape velocity for a significantly sized craft. Ion drives would make ideal engines for a number of purposes on a NERVA style craft, though. Plane changes and such...anywhere time wasn't an issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

It would have been a beautiful thing but you don't figure the politics of launching nuclear bombs into space during the 60's would have prevented it?

Not at all, as the USA and USSR conducted many high altitude nuclear weapons tests in the late 1950's and early 1960's. This was completely consistent with other bomb testing (surface, underwater, and air bursts). ABM defense systems would actually explode nuclear warheads at high altitude as well. All good fun !

Blaming eco-nuts seems a little revisionist.

Not really....I specifically recall the eco-nuts trying to stop the Cassini mission because of the RTG power source that uses plutonium. Space probes to the outer solar system cannot effectively use solar panels. Glowing plutonium pellets can make thermoelectric power love you long time:

[GostHacked]

Ion drives have super specific impulse but rotten thrust. It would take a VERY long time to reach escape velocity for a significantly sized craft. Ion drives would make ideal engines for a number of purposes on a NERVA style craft, though. Plane changes and such...anywhere time wasn't an issue.

Are we talking space travel or simple escape velocity? If escape velocity, then we should continue with the current tech we have. A nuclear powered rocket is just .. short sighted in my view. Rockets may have a good track record, but they are not flawless. I'd hate to abandon a perfectly good launch site simply because of nuclear contamination/radiation.

[DogOnPorch]

[DogOnPorch]

Are we talking space travel or simple escape velocity? If escape velocity, then we should continue with the current tech we have. A nuclear powered rocket is just .. short sighted in my view. Rockets may have a good track record, but they are not flawless. I'd hate to abandon a perfectly good launch site simply because of nuclear contamination/radiation.

NERVA rockets are not intended to launch payloads into orbit.

[GostHacked]

NERVA rockets are not intended to launch payloads into orbit.

So in a round about way, as usual, you are talking about escape velocity.

[Bonam]

NERVA was envisioned as an upper stage to replace the Centaur upper stage.

[bush_cheney2004]

I remember NERVA being developed at the Nevada Test Site, not far from the underground warhead tests...and only about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Hollywood made some great sci-fi movies based on the research at the time, including The Amazing Colossal Man:

[DogOnPorch]

I remember NERVA being developed at the Nevada Test Site, not far from the underground warhead tests...and only about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Hollywood made some great sci-fi movies based on the research at the time, including The Amazing Colossal Man:

[DogOnPorch]

So in a round about way, as usual, you are talking about escape velocity.

Yes. Edited February 19, 2013 by DogOnPorch