The Thomas James off-topic topic thread

[Chris Millar]

Uncontrolled as in once the bang starts, it can't be stopped. :)

 

Like the universe :P

[Thomas James]

But a nuclear reaction does not have to be either controlled or contained in order for it to be harnessed. Remember when most scientists have said that we may never develop nuclear fusion power because it is almost impossible to contain it and so they try to develop exotic technologies such as electro magnetic force fields to contain the enormous heat and suggest such technology may not be available until the year 2050. However the 1950's Orion project attempted to harness uncontrolled and uncontained nuclear fusion power by merely designing a pusher plate that would allow the rocket to move up with each atomic bomb blast. The bomb was positioned just far enough away a few hundred feet so that the rocket would not be destroyed but rather would ride each resultant shock wave.

 

The concept broke all the rules of the slow evolution of spaceflight technology. Even though when the concept was first invented Sputnick was still in its infancy,we shortly afterwards had the technology for manned spaceflight to anywhere in the solar system for a budget no greater than the Apollo program. As a matter of fact even though during the late 1950's when we did not even have manned spaceflight but rather just satellites the size of baseballs,the manned moon rocket Apollo program was already obsolete as well as the space shuttle and even todays technology is obsolete. Yet NASA still insisted on their attitude that we have to crawl before we walk and if NASA could have had their way they would have scorned those bicycle mechanics the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane when common sense tells us that they should have invented the motorcycle first.

[Thomas James]

Anyway if anyone wants to make a movie about atomic bomb rocket ships the trick to getting past all these Jane Fonda type producers is to make sure the movie features enough nuclear accidents so as to reinforce their anti-nuclear beliefs. You can have the atomic piston drive mechanism suffer from problems with preignition of the atomic bombs which causes engine knock which sends shock waves throughout the vessel and throws everyone around. You can also have radiation leaking into the crew compartment which causes everyones hair to fall out and to die slowly of radiation sickness. However I do think that in order to satisfy the conservative producers you would want the astronauts to at least live long enough to fly under the rings of Saturn.

[Daniel Sheehy]

LoL

 

Riding an explosive shock wave on a pusher plate does not constitute controlled flight.

[Chris Millar]

Riding an explosive shock wave on a pusher plate does not constitute controlled flight.

 

Why not ?

 

Once you understand something well enough you can control it. What definition of 'controlled flight' are you drawing your conclusions from ?

[Daniel Sheehy]

Why not ?

 

Once you understand something well enough you can control it. What definition of 'controlled flight' are you drawing your conclusions from ?

If you called being fired from a canon, controlled flight, then I will concede, riding an explosive shock wave meets that definition of 'controlled'.

 

If you take control to mean 'having the ability to manage or direct' then no, it's not controlled.

[Chris Millar]

If you called being fired from a canon, controlled flight, then I will concede, riding an explosive shock wave meets that definition of 'controlled'.

 

If you take control to mean 'having the ability to manage or direct' then no, it's not controlled.

 

I still don't get it - why 'cant' you manage or direct them ? Why is the tense of your discussion as if its all been sorted out already ? Have you tried ?

 

Odd things fascinate odd people - some of them are genius ...

 

You've got me searching for a subtext :huh:

[Chris Durham]

If you called being fired from a canon, controlled flight, then I will concede, riding an explosive shock wave meets that definition of 'controlled'.

 

If you take control to mean 'having the ability to manage or direct' then no, it's not controlled.

 

Fire me from a cannon in a shell with wings with flaps and a tail with a rudder and I can control it (assuming the inertia doesn't bother me much, and I'm Chuck Yeager or someone, cuz I'd probably poop myself).

[Daniel Sheehy]

I still don't get it - why 'cant' you manage or direct them ? Why is the tense of your discussion as if its all been sorted out already ? Have you tried ?

 

Odd things fascinate odd people - some of them are genius ...

 

You've got me searching for a subtext :huh:

:)

 

There is no subtext Chris. As far as I know, it's not a topic of current research, so I was using past tense. But if you can point me to current research I'll be happy to admit I got it wrong.

[Thomas James]

As a matter of fact the concept was tested in the 1950's albeit with models and conventional explosives and the testing may not have yet proven controlled flight however it was sucessfull and did not crash or blow up but rather ascended 200 feet up into the air. When demonstrated the concept even had the backing of Werner Von Braun as a more advanced alternative to the Apollo program. What the inventors claimed as what really happened, although a 10 million dollar feasability study was allowed, the project died because of a suppression of the most major advancement of human technology in the history of the 20th century. The reason why the project died even though it proved all of the NASA rocket scientists wrong for wasting time developing thier obsolete chemical rockets is that no one feels comfortable exploding atomic bombs in the atmosphere in order to propel spacecraft. Of 50 years ago there was a real concern of radiological pollution that could kill 1 to 10 people with every launch due to early cancer deaths. However with todays technology and the development of pure fusion atomic bombs the risks are greatly reduced.

 

Their is a lot of technology that has been developed but has been suppressed. We have lubrication technolgies that allow for lifetime oil changes with engine durability of a million miles. But the reason why we do not use these technologies is the retarded mechanic who wrote the owners manual will immediately void out the engine warranty because he cannot comprehend any oil lasting longer than 3000 miles nor can he comprehend a fuel that gets better millege than 20 miles to the gallon. We have the technology to obsolete aircraft and build trains that go 4000 miles per hour simply by levitating them and running them through vacuum tubes to eliminate air and rolling resistance. But the retarded mechanic will object to this technology because he thinks it will cause people to suffocate ignoring the fact that all aircraft today use pressurized cabins and if this technology fails the passengers would suffocate unless they get to their oxygen masks.

[Chris Millar]

:)

 

There is no subtext Chris. As far as I know, it's not a topic of current research, so I was using past tense. But if you can point me to current research I'll be happy to admit I got it wrong.

 

I don't think either of us are wrong or right - its more I'm just saying just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it couldn't be done ...

 

Thomas will likely point you to research ;)

[K Borowski]

The reason why the project died even though it proved all of the NASA rocket scientists wrong for wasting time developing thier obsolete chemical rockets is that no one feels comfortable exploding atomic bombs in the atmosphere in order to propel spacecraft. Of 50 years ago there was a real concern of radiological pollution that could kill 1 to 10 people with every launch due to early cancer deaths. However with todays technology and the development of pure fusion atomic bombs the risks are greatly reduced.

 

 

This is just wrong. Fusion bombs are just as dirty (and have far longer-lasting radioisotopes than the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs) and the background radiation is longer lasting. Even a pure fusion reactor, which doesn't exist yet EXCEPT in a hydrogen bomb, leaves behind radioactive byproducts, like irradiated tritium and protons (alpha particles) which are themselves considered radiation.

 

There's no such thing as "new" nuclear bombs. In case you haven't noticed, there is still a serious amount of mutually assured destructive power possessed by the former Soviet Union and the United States & Allies. We have TOO MANY nuclear bombs, and they pose a continued problem into the 21st Century with Pakistan, India, Iran, & North Korea's potential usage of them, let alone rouge groups.

 

 

So quit talking out your ass about in-atmosphere nuclear rocketry. All reasonable designs are assembled, at the very least in LEO (low Earth orbit). The only atomic rockets that were designed for use in the atmosphere were made before there was a clear understanding of the radioactive repercussions of said energy.

[Thomas James]

That is not entirely correct. Modern day thermonuclear hydrogen bombs are actual hybrid fission fusion devices which are designed to allow a fission bomb to ignite a fussion bomb. More advanced pure fussion bombs are ignited with super lasers. Therefore such bombs would be useless as weapons because they would require a 10 billion dollar superlaser in order to acheive ignition. Weapons grade bombs could be carried and exploded in space but this would only be done to reduce present nuclear arsenals. Now the question remains would a non weapons grade pure fusion bomb emit radiation? The answer is of course yes however it would not emit any radiation that is more dangerous than the sun. Therefore in this way it is relatively clean. The Earth has a protective atmosphere and a magnetic field that shields the earth from the sun's harmfull radiation. Likewise a nuclear launch would be done at the south pole away from population centers so it too can take advantage of the earth's natural shielding.

[Hal Smith]

Obviously no-one here remembers what happened when the US tried exploding nuclear weapons in the Van Allen belts in the mid-20th Century. The tests completely screwed up worldwide communications for days and if repeated today would probably fry the electronics in every satellite in low earth orbit (like the Space Station). The lower Van Allen belt hasn't returned to normal yet and isn't expected to for hundreds of years.

 

And you want to explode nuclear bombs in the atmosphere and space to power spacecraft?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Argus

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Starfish

[Thomas James]

Again we have to distinguish the difference between radiologically dirty fission bombs, hybrid fission fusion bombs that were used in the mentioned high atmospheric testing and pure fusion explosion devices that are worthless as weapons because they require a 3 billion dollar super laser to achieve ignition and do not promote nuclear proliferation because they do not use weapons grade plutonium but rather ignite hydrogen to create helium.

 

This is not to say that no radiation will be created but rather the goal is that a negligible amount of radiation will be added to the natural Van Allen radiation belts and that the goal of any risk will be no greater than getting a chest x-ray. Also a spacecraft launch corridor will be created at the Earth's poles to be as far away from population centers as possible and to avoid contact with satellites.

 

Of course this is all very theoretical and before launching is considered a full objective environmental impact report which considers all of the latest technologies including those that are classified will have to be considered. However I believe that the environmental impact report once completed will not be as severe as the nay sayers predict. And even if the environmental impact report declares this technology unacceptable there will still be options for underground launching as well as launching from lunar orbit as well as using contained nuclear reactors for atmospheric flight.

[Thomas James]

Again we have to distinguish the difference between radiologically dirty fission bombs, hybrid fission fusion bombs that were used in the mentioned high atmospheric testing and pure fusion explosion devices that are worthless as weapons because they require a 3 billion dollar super laser to achieve ignition and do not promote nuclear proliferation because they do not use weapons grade plutonium but rather ignite hydrogen to create helium.

 

This is not to say that no radiation will be created but rather the goal is that a negligible amount of radiation will be added to the natural Van Allen radiation belts and that the goal of any risk will be no greater than getting a chest x-ray. Also a spacecraft launch corridor will be created at the Earth's poles to be as far away from population centers as possible and to avoid contact with satellites.

 

Of course this is all very theoretical and before launching is considered a full objective environmental impact report which considers all of the latest technologies including those that are classified will have to be considered. However I believe that the environmental impact report once completed will not be as severe as the nay sayers predict. And even if the environmental impact report declares this technology unacceptable there will still be options for underground launching as well as launching from lunar orbit as well as using contained nuclear reactors for atmospheric flight.

[K Borowski]

launching from [. . . ] orbit

 

This is the only intelligent thing you've said thusfar regarding nuclear spaceflight.

[Thomas James]

Oh and if you think that laser fusion ignition is some kind of pipe dream might I might add that The Lawrence Radiation Laboratory has spent 3 billion dollars perfecting such devices and this is to allow ignition of a tiny pellet of hydrogen. If one is allowed to ignite much bigger explosive devices of the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT the technology becomes much easier.

[K Borowski]

Yeah, but I am talking about devices that exist in the here and now.

 

 

Currently, the only nuclear fission or fusion devices I'm aware of are ignited by a fission reaction.

 

 

 

And, why are you spilling over into other threads still with this stuff? Sheesh, I don't have my own thread. You should be flattered! :P

[Thomas James]

Yes it is true that there has been no laser fusion ignition of small pellets but maybe it will be a different story next year when they fire up the recently completed National Ignition Facility.

 

Whether or not laser ignition of larger than pellet sized fusion bombs has already been achieved is only speculation because much of this information is probably classified But I think it is fair to say that the larger the bomb the easier it is to ignite whether using conventional fission ignition or laser ignition. It just that small pellets are needed for nuclear power plants because the explosion must be contained but for nuclear rockets no containment is needed for a pure fusion device. Again a lot of this information is sensitive because the government does not want terrorists to have access to micro-explosive technology.

[Chris Millar]

Time to get this thread back up to speed me thinks ...

[K Borowski]

Seconded.

 

 

Please quit hijacking threads. . .