Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

ntrs.nasa.gov

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#11
post #7

What do you guys think of Laser sails & laser-based propulsion methods? The science exists now, seems like its only an engineering challenge. Phil Lubin has a paper on it as well https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/roadmap...

That's what Breakthrough Starshot[1] is about, although scaled down to very small probes. I like the probe concept. If we really don't want all our eggs in this one basket, it seems to make more sense to put effort towards tech that can spread our seeds (whatever that may be) rather than humans physically traveling.

[1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#12
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to have fuel to do that, you'd need to accelerate it to begin with. It ends up being an exponential increase in the quantity of fuel required, far more than could be carried. The chart from the paper was pretty convincing. I'll see if I can dig it up. Making the explosions more efficient can only get you so far. I'd prefer to be optimistic about it, but the math was showing that even with an ideal ability to…

According to the wikipedia page on Project Orion: Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved are a few percent of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c).[17] An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 9%-11% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by Fusion-antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion units would be similarly in the 10% range and pure Matt…

The referenced paper [18] is informative: http://www.space-nation.org/images/a/a1/Mini-Mag_Orion_and_s...

===

2.3. Deceleration: the canonical issue

While accelerating to a sizable fraction of the speed of light is a daunting task, deceleration is a yet more challenging task. The reason is that no realistic scenario to provide the gravy-train approach to either momentum transfer or pellet energy transfer at distances of 4+ light years seems within known physics. We are therefore challenged with either sending sufficient numbers of pellet-sheath elements so that the spacecraft can decelerate with on-board energy, or to come up with some other innovative concept.

2.3.1. Fueling at departure point

One option is to provide all necessary propellant at the departure location. If the specific power and specific impulse is sufficiently high, this is a potential approach. However, for our MMO concept, it is not particularly feasible. For example, our specific power is certainly high enough, but our specific impulse is dictated by the pellet-sheath combination, which limits the Isp to 128,955 s. While this may seem like a prodigious specific impulse, the ratio of spacecraft speed .1 c to g * Isp is 23. This means that the deceleration propellant must be e^23 times the spacecraft mass, which is an unworkable solution.

2.3.2. Mag Sail deceleration

In 2003 both Andrews and Lenard postulated using a large superconducting ring to intercept charge particles in interstellar space to slow the spacecraft down from high speeds. Additionally, the solar wind emanating from a star system provides an additional source of charged particles that can interact with the magnetic field. Deceleration can actually begin a sizable distance from the target star system. The following two charts indicate deceleration, velocity and time as a function of distance from the target star system. In this case the first phase of the deceleration starts at 21600 AU with a twoturn superconducting carbon nano tube reinforced loop. This loop captures the charged interstellar medium and deflects it to decelerate the spacecraft. This initial hoop size is 500 km in radius and carries 1,000,000 A of current. The spacecraft decelerates from .1 c to 6300 km/s by the time the spacecraft reaches 5000 AU. This will be quite a light show, so if there are any intelligent life forms with an observing system, they should be able to see the arrival.

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#15
post #7

What do you guys think of Laser sails & laser-based propulsion methods? The science exists now, seems like its only an engineering challenge. Phil Lubin has a paper on it as well https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/roadmap...

That's what Breakthrough Starshot[1] is about, although scaled down to very small probes. I like the probe concept. If we really don't want all our eggs in this one basket, it seems to make more sense to put effort towards tech that can spread our seeds (whatever that may be) rather than humans physically traveling. [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/

Exactly - i think there should be more companies & organizations working towards pushing this. To become space-faring, we need to get from 1ev per bond of molecule level of energies obtained from chemical to 1GeV levels atleast!

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#17

Please read Freeman Dysons's "Disturbing The Universe". This book is autobiographical and Dyson explains his arc of passion for nuclear propulsion and Orion. His strongest statement in this book is some deep respect for a biological scientist who, after seeing declassified army training manuals on chemical and biological warfare, supposedly discouraged the entire western hemisphere from further develomepment. This ki…

I would rather classify that as "unfortunate". Yes there are obviously biological harms in radiation exposure but that is what science & engineering is for. We know the power of nuclear energy so in order to harvest it, the right thinking should have been like "How can we safely extract it so that it does harm people in the mix?" rather than "Oh its harmful to humans so obviously we should give up and not use it".

Current fission startups are working on versions of reactors which eliminate most of the harmful byproducts in the process.

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#18
post #14

If only we could produce anti matter. A tiny amount would provide a fuel source viable for deep space exploration.

Anti-matter is produced at CERN for study https://home.cern/topics/antimatter.

The problem is not production of it but the economy of producing it. It's still very costly to produce and then to build and engine around it which uses the energy efficiently is still at least 10-15 years. But do believe that the time to start actively looking into it is NOW.

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#19
post #7

What do you guys think of Laser sails & laser-based propulsion methods? The science exists now, seems like its only an engineering challenge. Phil Lubin has a paper on it as well https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/roadmap...

That's what Breakthrough Starshot[1] is about, although scaled down to very small probes. I like the probe concept. If we really don't want all our eggs in this one basket, it seems to make more sense to put effort towards tech that can spread our seeds (whatever that may be) rather than humans physically traveling. [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/

Plus, mass driver approach is not the only way to use lasers right? Light can remotely power systems, heat solid propellants to extremely high temperature thus getting better thrusts, etc. So the technology, if scaled up correctly, can be used for large scale transport systems too.

Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion – Orion and Beyond (2000) [pdf]

#20

Please read Freeman Dysons's "Disturbing The Universe". This book is autobiographical and Dyson explains his arc of passion for nuclear propulsion and Orion. His strongest statement in this book is some deep respect for a biological scientist who, after seeing declassified army training manuals on chemical and biological warfare, supposedly discouraged the entire western hemisphere from further develomepment. This ki…

I would rather classify that as "unfortunate". Yes there are obviously biological harms in radiation exposure but that is what science & engineering is for. We know the power of nuclear energy so in order to harvest it, the right thinking should have been like "How can we safely extract it so that it does harm people in the mix?" rather than "Oh its harmful to humans so obviously we should give up and not use it". Cu…

I'm not sure all of the opposition to nuclear research is about dangerous byproducts from the typical situation(s). It is about the improbable problematic situation which lead to exponential disaster that are scary, and, even if improbable, inevitable...
Post reply on HN