/sci/ - Science & Math

And what do you want us to do about it. If you want to talk about it just ask us.

praise the lord and less science

let's imagine better ways to break from earth's gravity

captcha: Additional wildamed

Well gee, do you want invent something better Mr.I'msosmart?

>>2032162
But what if science and technology are my lord?

That's the idea, how else are they going to subsidize industry in a country that claims not to subsidize?

>>2032165
>implying there isn't far better methods of propulsion that are feasible
the issue is the cost of development. The current mindset is, who the fuck cares about space?

>>2032169

i do not plan to stick around when earth becomes a dead rock full of destructive humans

so yea, i care

>>2032167
we subsidize agriculture and no one gives a fuck. I think we could get away with subsidizing space travel.

might be a bit pants for now but at least we are working on chemical thrust from jet-style vehicle
Skylon project is rolling
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html

sabre engine at least is a move in the forward direction

>>2032174
While large, the aerospace industry and its dependants does not represent a major voting block.

Once human technology discovers anti gravity on massive scale, all your advanced space related dreams will come true and the true space age will start.

Space colony age will start as soon as the first warp engine prototype becomes functional.

the possibilities are endless

>>2032209
before that we should stop posting low def pics

>>2032209
exsqueeze me wtf are you doing on my sci?

>>2032156
What else are we supposed to use? Warp drives are fictional.

Ion drives are more efficient but we're nowhere near building ones which could be used for launch.

Nuclear fission isn't remotely viable. The weight of the shielding counteracts any efficiency advantages.

Pretty much everything else is still at the theoretical stage, i.e. hasn't even made it INTO the lab, let alone out of it.

>expensive, unstable and very unreliable

compared to what exactly

>>2032209
>Implying this hasn't already been invented and is being kept from the public for greedy "I know what humanity deserves to discover" reasons.

Hey. Guys.

Guys.

Guys, listen.

Guys.

They should use magnets to power the engine. Somehow.

OP thinks he's smarter than rocket scientists and NASA.

>>2032209
>anti gravity on massive scale
>anti gravity
>massive

We should make a giant sling.

>>2032535
What if you didn't send people with a fission powered rocket, but only supplies and shit, wouldn't that drastically reduce the amount of shielding and shock absorbtion needed, making it more a problem of politics of nuclear explosives than one of efficiency?
On a sidenote, how resistant are electronic devices to g forces?

The Japanese have a timetable in place for a space elevator, and believe that it'll cost about a trillion yen ($8 billion), and take about a decade. All we need is a slight increase in carbon nanotube length.

AeroEngyFag here,

basically, electromagnetic doesn't provide NEAR enough thrust, nuke could work if we launched from a lunar base (it's viable, just politically unpopular and the resulting fallout would suck on Earth), so hybrid liquid/solid boosters are the best thing we have rite nao.

>>2032658
Shut up.

>>2032535

Warp drives are'nt fictional anymore.

This guy Richard Obousy, developed a new theory for a warp drive based on quantum physics instead of general relativity, after Alcubierre Drive was deemed practically impossible (unstable, uncontrollable and transporting one atom with it requiring more energy than there is in the entire universe).

When he made the first version of his theory in 1999 something, the energy requirements were still similiar to Alcubierre Drive. But he has been honing (and still is) his theory since then and has so far been able to reduce the energy requirements to that equivalent to a mass of jupiter.

The idea of a feasible warp drive suddenly feels MUCH closer.

http://news.discovery.com/space/interstellar-warpship-richard-obousy.html

>>2032684

Well, not entirely fictional.

>>2032684

>reduce the energy requirements to that equivalent to a mass of jupiter.
>mass of jupiter
>largest planet in the solar system, unfathomably huge
>not fiction

>>2032684
>transport a single atom
>requires the mass of Jupiter
>feasible

Alright sire, I will fetch the jupiters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

Hey guys, dont mind me just sending 5700tons of payload to the fucking moon per launch with fifties technology, also, I had complete blueprints finished before nuclear fear killed me.

>>2032751

But isnt nucular technology is like, DANGEROUS? You can get CANCER and DIE?

>>2032751

Jesusfucking christ, why arent we doing that? We could launch it from Nevada or Sahara and send a complete prefab moonbase with supplies for a decades with a single launch. Hell, 5700t would be nearly more than all of our previous cargo sent in space before.

>>2032754

Oh, hi Dolly.

>>2032751
>>2032754

the world could have ended its oil dependence in the seventies with nuclear power

thanks for the global warming, envirotards

>>2032788

Oil dependency in energy production, yes. But transportation REQUIRES oil. Batteries are still shit, and in 70's, an electric car with half of it's weigth in batteries would've had trouble reaching 50 miles with one charge, and one charging would've taken half a day or more.

And i assume you know why nuclear reactors would not be an option when it comes to transportation. Betavoltaics again have nowhere near the output to power anything more demanding than low power electronics.

>>2032866
Orion-like engines for cars. Shit'd be epic.

Good reason to build a space fountain utilizing beams of microwaves or lasers.

>>2032156
it's almost 2011 and we still use dead dino juices to power just about everything. it's gonna be funny as fuck when we run out too

>>2032788
my god this is the stupidest thing i've read all day

Nuclear energy has progressed quite a bit since its days in the 50s when the Orion plans were drawn up.
Modern nuclear powerplants in Europe are very clean and efficient and the up dated plants here in the States are very clean as well.
When people hear NUCLEAR they hear DEATHDEATHRADIATIONCANCER, not knowing that it has become very safe.
If those old Orion designs were to be updated with new nuclear tech, it would be an extremely clean and efficient spacecraft.
Launch it down in New Mexico at our starport and have that be where new ships be launched from now on.

>>2034013

oh my fucking god people...

ORION ISNT MEANT TO BE LAUNCHED FROM EARTH, STUPID FUCKS. IT DOESNT MATTER HOW CLEAN IT IS. FAGGOTS.

holy SHIT, i fucking mad

>>2033014

because the oil lobby didnt used and funded the anti-nuclear protests at all, right?

>>2034013

Eating a banana gives you a bigger radiation dose than living next to a nuclear power plant for a year.

Every time nuclear power comes up in discussion someone goes OHMAHGAWDCHERNOBYLLL without realizing that it was a cobbled together soviet reactor with barely any safety features and it STILL tried to shut down itself three times and got overrided by its operators.

Also, burning radium-containing coal power plants give you a bigger dose than a nuclear one.

You sure served the environment well, hippies.

>>2034036
Regardless if it was or wasnt meant to be launched from earth, the orion spacecraft should be built in cooperation with all space fairing nations as a understanding that it will not be used for anything other than to expand humans into space.

Meh. Space elevator to beat Earth's gravity. Nuke pulse drive to get to the Moon and mine Helium-3 all day long.
???
Profit

>>2034183

pray tell, what do you intend to do with all that helium 3?

nightmare mode: your answer must not include non-existant technologies.

>>2034214
fusion, dildo

>>2034214
Be used in the research and development of more efficient powerplants and as a energy source.

>>2034214
nuclear fashion you idiot

It's because deep-space exploration doesn't print money in a society that worships the almighty dollar.

>>2032866
Have you considered the magic of public transportation, i.e. trains?

>>2032169
What, pray tell, are these far better methods of propulsion? No, really, I'm curious.

>>2032172
Then what is your plan of action for leaving this rock?

>>2032174 comparing agriculture to space travel
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>2032209 As soon as humanity 'discovers' anti-gravity and warp travel.
Academia representative here, there are so many things wrong with what you just said.... I'll just say you shouldn't hold your breath.

>>2032579
You made my day. Give yourself a hand.

>>2032647
Nope, 'supplies' would become radioactive, unusable, unstable. Not to mention the massive fallout radiation you're immersing the atmosphere with. To put a single nuclear powered rocket into space you'd poison half the globe.

>>2032647
Also, generally, the more 'complicated' the device, the less resistant it is to G-Forces. Though they can usually take it better than a human can.

>>2032684
I am skeptical, but I shall google this.

>>2032751
If by 'nuclear fear' you mean 'nuclear fallout which would irradiate the entire hemisphere for a single launch' then yes, 'nuclear fear' killed Project Orion, which was originally a project for a nuclear powered aircraft.

>>2032788
[citation needed] What would power your vehicle exactly?

>>2032875
Orion didn't HAVE an engine, the idea behind project Orion was to DROP NUCLEAR BOMBS and then RIDE THE BLAST WAVE INTO SPACE.

You, quite literally, surf on a wave of nuclear fire to the fucking moon. Awesome.

>>2034251
it would produce a ton of money and a entirely new industry.
Unfortunately those in power are terribly shortsighted.
We could make a petition to restart the programs that were cancelled or even a new organization to gain donations and funds necessary to reboot everything.
Countries sharing blueprints and minds supported by the people, corporations, and governments that want to get out there and make something of the human race.
If people only bitch and moan about "We should do" then things wont get done.
What I am doing is researching all the companies that are involved in space right now, what countries are spacebound and what arnt, what value of currency each nation would have to put forward in accordance to their situations, and setting up a poll to see how many people would like to do this.
All the people that I talked to that said "not really" or "i think its important but i dont know enough to really have a say" originally I have managed to convince once they are informed.

now, /sci/, dont you think if we did that, we would be able to get established as a force in space a lot faster than the rate we are now?

>>2033008
I'm not concerned, won't be in my lifetime.

>>2034013
I think you should read up on what Project Orion actually was. Or at the very least read my post summarizing it. Also I think you have a misguided notion of what 'clean' is. Modern power plants are 'clean' in that they have adequate safety protocols, shielding, and disposal methods. Safety protocols exist to shut down the reactor when the shit hits the fan, shielding is just more and more tons of concrete, and disposal still requires transportation of radioactive material to a 'safe' location. NONE of these things make a mobile nuclear reactor more viable than it was in the 50's.

>>2034036
You should be, because it -was- 'originally' intended to be launched from Earth. The plan changed when it was discovered that would be bullshit.

>>2034037
To be fair, 3-mile island is a valid concern.

>>2034073
Won't happen, political reasons. Besides, why would the US risk having a foreign power with space-nuclear capabilities?

>>2035413
Hello there captain buzzkill. Got any more dreams of mine you want to shatter?

>>2035413
>To be fair, 3-mile island is a valid concern.
No, it isn't. It is a testament to conservative design. In spite of the operators, the plant survived a design basis accident as intended. Where do you think Europe got the impetus to build more reactors?

>>2032535
>Nuclear fission isn't remotely viable. The weight of the shielding counteracts any efficiency advantages.

What's hilarious is that you actually believe this.

>>2035316
>>2035365
Radiation is not that dangerous bro.

Look at how many inefficient and dirty bombs have been detonated across the world already. The United States ALONE conducted over a THOUSAND tests.

Are we all glowing green and dying of radiation poisoning? Hell no.

You haven't even considered that we can build extremely efficient nuclear bombs that produce exceedingly little fallout.

Short of magic, future spaceflight WILL be done by atomics. It's the fastest and most efficient way to get around the solar system and the stars. In one launch a 4,000 ton Orion vehicle using 0.5kt to 5kt bombs for propulsion, can put 1600 metric tons into orbit.

A single fucking launch can put over 4 international space stations into orbit. A SINGLE LAUNCH.

We'd probably have colonies or outposts on or near every single planet in our solar system if the project had gone full steam ahead in the 1960's.

>>2032609
Fuck using magnets to power it.
Make a ship a giant magnet.
The earth's core is iron.
The giant magnet would repel the ship.
FLAWLESS!

>>2035425
I'm working on it, but I'm a little backed up at the moment. Someone over at /m/ is trying to discuss the feasibility of mechs in modern combat, and this weekend I'm booked because I need to build a sandwich board sign that says 'there is no cure, they're all going to die' while I run backwards at a 'run for cancer' relay. Not to mention I have to find some time to give out fortune cookies that say 'you will lead a short life' at the children's hospital.

>>2035431
I suppose you're right. Now that I think back on it, if I recall correctly there were actually little to no environmental hazards presented by the failure. I formally retract my thoroughly fallacious statements.

>>2035413
>Won't happen, political reasons. Besides, why would the US risk having a foreign power with space-nuclear capabilities?

Why are you so positive that it wont happen? ISS happened when a lot of people believed we couldn't get along. And there are other nations with space-nuclear capabilities so its not going to make any difference if another one is added onto the list.
Besides, its the space fairing nations anyway that would be developing the space crafts. Under developed nations can help providing funding and resources so they can gain representation and a slice of mined resources of any development in space.
If people keep staying scared of one another, nothing is going to get done. Any nation that threatens to attack the earth would end up being annihilated in the process. The people would uprise against such a political leader and its just suicide.
Peace occurs through cooperation to a common goal and the desire to gain.
Space can provide those, by bringing nations together and garnering wealth and notoriety for doing what they did.

>>2035439 what's hilarious is that you actually believe this.
Given the shielding that's necessary for nuclear power in modern applications, yes, I believe this. I submit modern shielding for reactors as my reasoning, what evidence do you submit that such shielding is not necessary?

>>2035439 look how many bombs have been detonated across the globe already.
Aaaaand surface-nuclear testing has been outlawed by international law and treaty because the effects of these nuclear tests were proven to have worldwide consequence with nontrivial radiation poisoning across the globe.

>>2035439 bombs that produce exceedingly little fallout.
[Citation Needed]

>>2035439 We'd all be dead if they'd gone ahead with the project in the 50's.

Fix'd

I hope I'm not sounding like a prick, I'm actually really enjoying this discussion and I don't want to discourage ideas or questions.

>>2035467
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the world unite under the banner of progress and for us all to get along. On a personal level, I thoroughly support your dream.

However, you ask of the US to put weapons grade plutonium in space (which is what would be necessary for an orion-class ship to function) and to leave it under anything less than absolute maximum security requiring authority from anyone less than the president himself to call to functionality.

A nuclear device blown in high-earth orbit would still generate an EMP shockwave that could send a large city to the stone age in a matter of seconds, putting millions of lives across the globe at risk and in foreign hands, many of which are not the most fond of Americans.

>>2035534
But what if there is a certain distance that Orion needs to be at before launch?
It has to be built in space, so why not at a EMP shielded space station between the earth and the moon?
Maybe even built on the moon, launched from the moon via mag-lev propulsion (the slingshot idea) and then activated away from the station?
We could still use Orion and still have many countries involved with it.

>>2035534
Imbecile. The payloads required by an orion-vehicle are tiny. They would not create EMPs large enough to black out major cities. These are not hiroshima bombs you dumbfuck! They are mini-nukes. Also, did you dumbfucks know that there have been THOUSANDS of nuclear tests since the beginning of the Cold War and the world hasn't died from cancer. So, please, stfu. Amurrica is just too near-sighted and without a will to make these things. If Amurrica really wanted to, they could make these Orion vehicles in less than 10 years and have us travelling to Mars in a matter of hours.

Project Orion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A

>>2035607
as cool as that design and idea is, that landing process onto mars would not work.
I would say that it might even be better to have the ship, once in space, be expanded upon so that you could launch from the Orion landing vessels to mars so you dont have to worry about the landing process.
The capsules launched to the surface could then stay there and be connected to for the Martian colony.

Project Orion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Lxx2VAYi8#t=24s

>>2035644
its so depressing that many of those researchers died without seeing their vision come to fruition.

So, what do you think in regards to >>2035590 ?
>>2035594 says that its much less than what you (>>2035534) stated and I will definetly look into this more.

But with the plan stated for the organization of the world, and the usage of the Orion, what do you all think?

I am investing a extensive amount of time into this and the opportunity of discussion is very important to me. All insight and deliberation is appreciated.

>>2035386
What exactly are you doing? Just running polls? Do you represent a group or anything?

>>2035590
Possibly, though if you've already got strong momentum going from whatever launched the craft from the moon, my first instinct would be to question why not simply use that momentum to get where you're going. Though on reflection, I suppose you could increase speed or change direction by utilizing an Orion platform, but you could change direction with a liquid hydrogen rocket just as easily. I suppose the only real advantage is the possibility of increasing speed, which will have to be weighed against people under non-military authority possessing nukes.

>>2035594 Imbecile! The bombs required by Orion wouldn't produce EMP! Also I'm sure all those surface-nuclear test had no consequences whatsoever!
Pic related. Fact-Check yourself before you throw insults around, you only make yourself look more foolish when I inform everyone how wrong you are. On the Y-Axis you'll see the density of Electromagnetic pulse produced by a bomb of yield given on X-axis. Given that the Orion uses yield of around .2Kt, the graph (source:wiki 'EMP') indicates pulse density of 20,000 v/m at a distance of 300km away (about the altitude of the International Space Station).

Also, you should google the research of Pauling and Commer about the consequences of those thousands of bombs the U.S. tested in the 50's. We're not all dead from cancer because we STOPPED surface testing nukes...imbecile.

>>2035807
What im doing is doing research and discussing with people about their feelings and hopes in regards of spacial expansion.
By using research im gathering, I am hoping to be able to set up a plan that can be followed, a goal to reach, and a vision that people can understand and get behind.
Once figuring these things out, I will do my best to start a organization that will gain political, corporate, and public interest.

Itll be tough and take a long time, but I will try regardless for it may be something that actually reunites the planet for a new goal.

>>2035776
The Orion Platform, though innovative, carries certain risks, both environmental and political, that must be weighed against the utility of the platform.

For starters, the use of the Orion Platform as an Earth-launching platform is quite dangerous for the reasons I've listed previously.

As a space-only craft accelerant, it may prove useful. However, considering that each nuclear explosion of .15 kT yield would add only roughly 13m/s (30 mph) to the craft's velocity PER DETONATION, I call into question it's actual usefulness compared to liquid hydrogen rockets which provide constant force translating to constantly increasing velocity.

All in all, my first impression is that the Orion seems unnecessary compared to liquid hydrogen fuel, however I will not rule it out as a possibility as further research may prove it fills a critical niche I could not hope to imagine in the short time I've considered this propulsion mechanism.

>>2035981
You're fighting an uphill battle up the steepest of slopes.

But you're doing something noble, and I applaud your efforts.

>>2035981
I see, thanks for answering.
And god damn, you're fighting against the odds.
But, hats off to you if you actually are trying.

>>2035981
Much respect towards you and your efforts. Good luck, we ALL need this.

>>2035501
>bombs that produce exceedingly little fallout.
Don't fusion bombs only have a very small % of fallout ?
like the Tsar Bomba was 97% Fusion and the last 3% was a tiny bit that made the fallout.
my 2 cents, google is your friend.

>>2036012
>>2035933
The Orion would actually go at a much faster rate than the 30mph that you stated. The 30mph is actually what each blast would yield starting at sea level. That is not what we are doing with the Orion however so it can utilize a much higher amount of energy into forward motion.

You also mentioned to keep using the momentum from the initial launch from the moon.
You are very much correct in that it will be utilized, but the Orion, and its unmanned sister ship the Daedalus, would be doing much grander things.
My proposal is that the Orion, and Daedalus after nuclear fusion is successfully engineered using a mixture of deuterium and helium-3 and turned into a manned craft, act as our first true flagships.
These will be quite large and intended to be colony ships with the ability to start mining projects and research projects farther out into the system.
Being that the intention, using nuclear propulsion to reach the other spacial bodies at a faster rate seems the most reasonable.

>>2036341


The order of operations I have regarding spacial expansion involves the utilization of all 22 launch pads on earth (http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/LaunchSites.html)) at once (launched at timed intervals) to begin construction in space immediately.
These ships will connect together to utilize all the rooms available to prevent claustrophobia and head to the moon and act as the new moon base. After things are settled and everything tests to work well, the ships will begin to be used for their primary purposes of mining and processing materials. (what i am trying to figure out is how to effectively process these materials). One ship, being purposed as a magnetic launch pod, will launch one of the other shuttles (containing the first shipment of Helium-3) to the space station where the cargo can be distributed to its target countries via drop pod (pod will have heat resistant plating and parachutes to slow fall, target landing areas will be designated by governments).

>>2036343

>Ships will again launch from the 22 launch sites. These parts will connect and move halfway between the earth and the moon. This will be the midway station that will act as a rest stop for persons who are in transit between the earth and the moon in the future and can act as a maintenance bay (order of this operation may change to be before the settlement of the moon.)

Virgin Galactic, and other companies, can use its SpaceShipThree to make runs to drop off supplies if necessary to the ISS to be utilized as necessary.

Materials will be processed on the moon to be used in expansion of the moon base and creation of new heat resistant plates for drop pods.
Materials will be used to construct solar energy satellites to give energy back to the earth and supply energy to any satellite, space station, base, or space ship that needs it via microwave radiation. (this has been tested and proven to work via a test performed in hawaii)
Materials will be used to construct the Orion on the moon (or at the midway station).

>>2036345

>The Orion will be supplied with the materials and supplies necessary to set up space station "rest stops" between the Earth and Mars orbits. The intention of creating these stops is so people can go to-and-fro from the earth and mars without having to worry about timing the jump precisely and can go to one of these stations to be launched from there. (this idea is pending on the use of nuclear energy being used on smaller crafts or not).

Orion will then move to Mars and establish a station on either of its moons. This moon will act as a launching point for mars. Equipment can then be sent down to mars where a base is established. All ships that leave mars can go to its moon and switch out to a nuclear shuttle. This shuttle will scuttle out a safe distance from the moon before activating its nuclear engine. The ship that left mars to go to its moon may be used to send crew, supplies, or just sent back down to mars to be reused again.

>>2036341


Orion, and hopefully the Daedalus by now, may now expand outward to asteroids, Europa, and beyond. If research into nuclear engines is correct, then these capital ships will be able to reach pluto within a year or 2 from launch.


The plan I hope people agree to is to utilize all the space agencies on earth at once by sharing ideas and research between each other.
The countries that can do this are: USA, China, Russia, Japan, India, and the European Union (participating countries respectively)
Countries that are not space capable I hope will provide funding and representatives to participate as well.
The companies that I hope get involved are: Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Lockheed, EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), BAE Systems, and their lesser competitors.
Companies that I hope sponsor the project: All major corporations that want their logo on the ships.

>>2036343
>>2036345
>>2036347

These are all my idea. Please give me any sort of insight because it will be considered in my final paper and design.

The actual orion documents if anybody wants them.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071022133749rn_1/www.mfbb.net/nuclearrockets/nuclearrockets-about12.htm
l


Which would result in 1-10 fatal cancers in the entire world population of 1960 for every 10 launches, so 2-20 for every 10 launches today.

Hell one launch could lift 2 million tons into orbit. Which you could then use to build a lofstrom loop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop Which can be built with known materials and engineering. Then you could lift the components of future orion ships into orbit using the loop and only fire the nuclear pulse detonation engine once you are beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. Meaning no radioactive particales will get back to Earth.

So for the cost of 20 lives globally we could have a way to get to Mars in two weeks or Saturn in two months. And for those who say we shouldn't trade lives for progress, I have to tell you something. For every building taller than ten stories we build in the USA or EU one man will suffer accidental death during the construction. We trade lives everyday, it's just that most people are pansies that don't want to admit it.

>>2036358
same faggin

>Given that the Orion uses yield of around .2Kt, the graph (source:wiki 'EMP') indicates pulse density of 20,000 v/m at a distance of 300km away (about the altitude of the International Space Station).

Indeed but 20,000 vs over meter is only enough to cause a failure in 1/10^5 integrated circuits
out side an oval with an maximum diameter of only 140 miles. No failures will occur 180 miles from the launch point regardless of the shape of the EMP foot print. By launching in certain areas of Nevada, Canada, Alaska, or from a barge at sea the EMP problem is eliminated. The propulsive charges would also have lead casings, which would not undergo fission like a uranium casing. So being thermo nuclear charges there would be comparatively little fallout, 1/1080 that of a uranium cased warhead of the same design.

Also most of the radiation released during nuclear testing was from older boosted fission warheads. The lead cased thermonuclear ones like the Tsar Bomba actually contributed very little despite accounting for the majority of nuclear tests. Still there was no reason not to do them underground just to minimize the risks.

For a propulsion design with a high enough deltaV and specific impulse to reach 0.1 after 4 years of acceleration at 60g, I am willing to accept a lot a drawbacks.

Mars in two weeks, Saturn in two months bitches!

>>2036368
>4 years of acceleration at 60g
so an unmanned mission?

However I must say that for all you who that space exploration will always be peaceful and cooperative I've got respect fully disagree. Give the type of payloads nuclear pulse propulsion can move about resource extraction from space becomes viable. It will likely be the dawn of a new age of imperialism, and I am quite comfortable with that.


1) Use nuclear pulse propulsion to lauch 100,000 tonne ship into orbit.

2) Park it near a 1 mile diameter nickle-iron and use the ship as a gravity tractor to alter its orbital path.

3) Use the propellent warheads on the rock to slow it into high orbit around Earth, by detonating the nukes off the surface, vaporizing a portion of it, provifing thrust for the braking maneuver.

4) $20 trillion dollars of ore. And no, it won't flood the market anymore than fining sedimentary basin full of BIFs on Earth would. You still have to mine it and process it, which will take awhile. Also you now have a crap load of building material already in orbit.

5) Deorbit the rock on your enemies for about 3 teratons of fun. It's a weapon and a source of profit at the same time, what more could you ask for? And if you just altered the things original orbit to make it earth crossing, that way it has a higher velocity and makes a bigger bang.

6)Profits!!!

>>2036382
Indeed you could get to Proxima Centuria in about 55 years, which ain't bad for a probe.

>>2036358
Give me proof about the 10 story buildings/ accidental deaths.

>>2036397
Read about it in an engineering class in collage. Attempting googlefu now.

>>2036385
got a better rez photo of your picture?

>>2036397

>http://www.thefloridafirm.com/construction-injuries.html
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/fatal-construction-accidents-160077.php

1. Construction accidents have the most fatal injuries

With 29.4 percent of all fatal injuries in 2008/9 attributable to the construction industry, construction accidents cause the most fatal injuries of all the main industry groups. With 53 fatal construction injuries in 2008/9, this was, however, a 26 percent decrease on the previous year's figure.

http://www.articleshmarticle.com/Art/368169/156/Top-4-Construction-Accident-Statistics.html

Apparently they have gotten much better since the 90s this seems to indicate that less than 0.2 suffer fatal injury or eventual fatal exposure to hazardous chemicals now assuming about 2000 new office buildings over ten stories in height are constructed in a year in the USA.

>>2036414
nope but I got angles.

>>2036414

>>2036435
so whats the difference between Michael and Footfall?

>>2036433
>>2036435
What's kind of funny is apparently Kennedy was shown something like this by the air force and he totally pussed out on it, and thought the idea of awesome nuclear battleships was to destabilizing. I really would not have expected that from him, despite being a Democrat he tended to lean just right of center. He certainly opposed Nam because he thought it was a waste of money and that "containment" was more a hypotheses than anything, but he still berated draft dodging. I would have though he would like a xbox huge spaceship armed with nuclear howitzers.

Ah, I pine for what may have been have been and what could never be. Also for the good of all mankind too, I guess. Sort of, not really. What I'm is a what a planet devastating space dreadnought. Is that so wrong?

>>2034037
Hippies had nothing to do with this, you massive piece of actual-shit. I'M A HIPPIE AND I LOVE FISSION POWER PLANTS.

That whole anti-nuclear thing was and still is paid for by oil companies.

BUSINESS, BITCH.

>>2036458
Footfall is the name of the novel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall

Micheal is the ship.
One thing I that always bugs me about scifi is that none of the scientists act like most other scientists I know. There are far fewer Carl Sagans and Oppenheimer in my circles than there are Edward Tellers and Strange Loves.

One day we were talking about this very thing and we ended up calculating the total yield of the largest hydrogen bomb that you could send in a 100,000 ton payload orion, then deorbit onto a target. We came up with something like 800-950 teratons. Essentially nine times the yield of the Chicxulub impact. Of course someone else said it would take the whole world ten years to make enough deuterium for it.

Of course we are mostly Geologist so our lives are all "You must acquire more vespene gas."

Yeah for humanity and space imperialism.

>>2036482
Bull, I'm a oil geologist that works for Occidental Petroleum. They own interests in Nuclear plants, including the new one they are putting in.

More oil, more coal, more uranium, more photoelectric cells. More I way, moar everything! Mankind's machines are more beautiful than the biosphere and it is time that we beautify this wretched ball of dirt.

Oh, my crazy is coming through. I'll try to tone it down a little.

>>2036499
all the better to get into space and mine that raw material considering the moon and asteroids are loaded with precious metals and nuclear reactants.

>>2036355
so does anyone have any other opinions on how I can improve the space initiative?

I do like the Launch Loop and I will look into that one more. That may even be one of the keys to help unite people.

>>2036499
>Crap I just realized I was name faggin as a /tg/ tread.
>Oh, my crazy is coming through. I'll try to tone it down a little.
You know what? After having another drink, I say sanity is a crutch for the weak. So here is a crazy plan.

By slowing taking apart planets and bolides, and using the material to construct dyson swarms of space habitats around red dwarfs we can endure for tens of trillions of years. And I do mean slowly since even the largest lofstrom loops can only lift 500 million tons a year and you could only fit about 1000 on earth it would still take nearly 10 million years to disassemble the planet. But it can be done only with proven technology, no super materials or new energy sources needed. You could power them using huge convection towers that contain liquid halite, which would be heated by the hot lithosphere you are uncovering. And of course the job would only get easier as the planet is taken apart: less gravity, more heat being radiated, more materials for building and maintaining the loops.

That said you's still have to use orion drives to move the material for the first loop into orbit and to travel to other stars. But it is all completely doable only with modern materials and engineering. We can conquer the cosmos with only what we know today, no soft scifi crap needed. It will just take a very, very long time.

>>2036499
You're alright, then, but who the fuck ACTUALLY listens to us hippies? Nobody.

The only thing that has the power to stop great things from being set into motion is money, money from the pockets of fat ugly mother fucking business men who are scared of change.

>>2036531
Well what killed it was not the hippies, so much as 3 mile island and a movie called the China Sydrome. And that movie was so inaccurate it made me cry. Three mile island wasn't even a big deal. The core material melted and pooled at the bottom of the reactor and that was it. The radiation release was tiny and do to them venting steam so pipes would not be over pressure.

Then Chernobyl put the nail in the coffin when a shitty reactor run by fuckwits had a steam explosion. The learned a lesson the US never had to because it was obvious to begin with. Do not use graphite tips on your control rods. And even then it only happened because they disabled all the safeties for a test. Derpty derp lets let the core overheat then drop graphite(which is a poorer neutron moderator than the water it was displacing) into the reactor. I wonder what will happen?

>>2036527
>no super materials
>huge convection towers
>planetary scale

ahum

>>2036560
YOU DOUBT THE WILL OF THE MIGHTY TERRAN EMPIRE!!!

>>2036561
...was that a statement or a question?

>>2036549
and then stalkers

>>2036560
The convection towers need not be more than a quarter of a kilometer in height, which is doable.

>>2036572
Both.

>>2036561
Please Imperium of Man. How can you call yourself a nerd?

>>2036590
Isn't that a space marine and chaos.
You need the imperial guard, common now guy.

We've got hippies, Saganesque peacenik explorers, and Stanglove roleplaying militaristic geologists in here trying to chart the future of manned space exploration.

Mr President get in here, you need to read this tread.

>>2036516
seriously guys, I would really like some more insight.
Also, if anyone has connections to people in other countries that I could get in touch with, that would be great too. Just a regular person would do, cause we just have to get them interested and begin asking others in their country. I already have China and Germany taken care of because of my contacts there. If they can gain interest, that would strengthen the foot hold.
They are just waiting for me to make a solid statement. please guys, more info.

>>2036606
The president would need convincing too but I believe he might approve when it comes to something so unifying on a global scale.

This thread is amusing.

>>2036613
Here is a guy that does math regarding hypothetical engine designs in his spare time. Good for differentiating scifi from plausible designs.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/surfaceorbit.php

>>2036606
pic: Nuclear gunboat diplomacy IN SPACE, sigh, if only.

>>2036590

Neither have genitalia, so that fucktarded bear is moot. Also this >>2036597

But in all reality, OP I'm going to need citation for your three points.

>>2034037
>>2036549
>>2035501
I agree.

>I can't believe this, it's almost 2011 and we still use fossil fuels
you better start because it isn't changing soon

>>2032156
every single american and european cares about subsidized agriculture. It allows extremely low food prices and holds entire industries together.

>>2036590
Spess Marines are part of the Imperium.

>>2036649
They probably still have dicks. And Chaos Marines definitely have them.

>>2036733
Fossil fuels
Pro: cheap, two of them are fluids and easily transported in pipelines, 1:10 energy input to output ratio for finished products, infrastructure in place, 78 year supply of oil that can be made into gasoline that costs less then 4.000 2001USD, 250-300 year supply of coal, 125 year supply of natural gas(200 with shale gas).
At least according to the AAPG.

Cons: Burning increases particulate count, few spills, oh no a 2.9(0.9m) foot sea level rise by 2125, 1.9-2.9 F(1C) temperature increase.

We are going to be using this stuff for quite a while. Simply put the benefits of the energy source allow use to quickly advance mechanization, which is more important to our long term survival than the biosphere.

>>2036341
Ah, there is a misunderstanding, Wiki's not very clear on this. It describes the blast yield of the bombs at sea level, the change in velocity of the craft is assumed to be in space, not on Earth. One of the reasons the craft is moved so little by the blasts is because the craft is incredibly massive. (you're talking about a craft that is designed to CONSISTENTLY survive nuclear blasts in relatively close proximity) It takes a lot of kinetic energy to move this thing.

>>2036341 deuterium and Helium-3
Believe me, I wanted Fleischmann and Pons to be correct, but I wouldn't hold my breath for high-school electrolysis experiments to yield cold fusion. Assuming physics breaks and we do discover a cheap method of manufacture muon particles (the -actual- way cold fusion can be done) We would need a whole fleet of these things before a mining facility would be of any use or profit.

>>2036358
And what of non-lethal disease as a result of radiation? As I stated earlier, Pauling and Commer found implications of nuclear radiation far beyond what Uncle Sam thought of in the 50's. As modern medicine has found radiation dosages to have far more harmful effects than previously thought, the likely conclusion is that the Orion will be much more lethal and have much more dire consequences than the scientists who originally pitched the project in the 50's thought.

Also, on 'trading lives for progress'. Nowhere in the engineering specifications of a construction project does it spell out the requirement of lost life. Lost life in construction projects happens as a result of mistakes. If you want to start including 'mistake analysis' as part of this exercise, think of the horrific possibilities of a 'mistake' when operating the Orion Platform.

Remember guys, I want this to work as bad as you do, but any responsible engineer has to recognize as many possible faults or failings as possible, even if they're political or environmental instead of technical.

>>2036368 ...failures in only <span class="math"> \frac{1}{10^5}[/spoiler] of ICs...

Hmmm...Where did you get these numbers? I would like to know not only for this discussion, but for another thought experiment of mine.

I suspect there may be some misunderstanding in interpreting the results of Pulse propagation over large distances. The 20kV/m charge density is already at a distance of 300km from the blast radius. If I'm interpreting you correctly (which I may not be, so correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that from the center point of a 20KV/m charge density field, electronics within an additional 140miles are in danger. Therefore, IC's are in danger within 300km + 140m (=550km) of ground zero. So 550km is the total effective danger radius? I might be misinterpreting something here. Please correct me if I am.

Remember, the reason I bring this up is NOT for planned usage, I'm assuming we're smart enough not to launch over populated areas even if we do minimize risks. I bring this up for political reasons, there is a danger to putting nuclear technology in the hands of anyone not under the highest of scrutiny or under less than absolute maximum security.

The reason I'm doing this is because playing educated devil's advocate evokes the most educated responses. For example, I had no idea high-fusion bombs were so clean, use of high-fusion bombs may eliminate my radiation concern altogether if we do it right. But nobody would have mentioned the use of high-fusion bombs and their cleanliness if I weren't such a dick about the radiation poisoning of high fission bombs.

"I'm presenting this EMP data as a possible risk posed by unscrupulous forces seeking to harm involved nations. This would discourage the nations of the world from allowing this project to succeed."

Guys, we might be getting PartyVan'd for this, 4chan wouldn't let me use this phrase in my previous post.

>>2036385
You ever hear of the Air Force's "Rods from God" project? It's the weapon you're describing using massive tungsten rods as space-fired projectiles.

Another concern I haven't even touched on is the possibility of some terrorist using the Orion Platform ITSELF as a dropped weapon. This thing would be massive and would likely survive reentry. That's one more reason politics of defense may get in the way of this project.

>>2036472
Well, to be fair, even if they didn't realize it at the time, the Orion Battleship would have wreaked havok on human life and the terrestrial environment. So, it's for the best it wasn't done. (Because then the Soviets would have tried to do it and they wouldn't be as careful!)

>>2036482
From what I understand, it was a little bit from both.

>>2036499
That reminds me, I need to roll an 'Industrial Druid' for my next session. You already have the right idea for his attitude and demeanor.

>>2036516
I would avoid anything that could be weaponized to keep people warm to the idea. Avoid putting nukes in space, also avoid putting 'big things' in space as they could be dropped on the planet. Both of these suggestions go against the Orion project, so I strongly encourage you to find another platform than the Orion one.

>>2037728
As others have previously stated most of the heath concerns that had to do with nuclear testing were caused by the detonation of pure fission, boosted fission weapons weapons, and U238 thermonuclear weapons. This results in a lot of radioactive daughter products such as Cu, Ba, Kr, and especially Sr 90. Since the fission primary of these sub kiloton devices was designed to be as small as possible and are lead cased very little of these daughter products are created as 90%+, depending on the yield since these weapons are adjustable.

The other factor that determines fallout is the amount of particulate material(atmosphereic dust, soil, and water) that is irradiated and can ejected into the atmosphere were it can then be redeposited as fallout. All the proposals either have these devices first stage being a huge multi kiloton pile of chemical explosives that the ship sits on. This will minimize the amount of soil or water irradiated by the take off of the ship.

Also as someone else pointed out we only need to launch a few to build a lofstrom loop, at which point we can simply construct on use NPP in space only making the concerns about radiation moot.

AS for mistakes, the bombs were made to renter the atmosphere and survive a crash without rupturing.

And if you absolutely demand an underground nuclear launch that is also possible to.
"http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/archive/2009/03/04/the-verne-gun"

See:http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/surfaceorbit.php
and
http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/archive/2009/03/04/the-verne-gun

"failings...environmental"
You say that like it might not be a good thing in the long term. I am beginning to question your faith in the Machine God.

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.
There is no strength in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.

>>2036527
You're right, it'll take forever and a day, but it could be done. Though I suppose we've still got 28,000 years before we're due for a galactic empire so we've got time.

>>2036560
No, it's legit...just kinda...ridiculous.

>>2036606
He's already here, he's banned a couple of my posts so far. I'm expecting a SWAT team shortly, there goes my plans for the day.

>>2036613
How serious are you about this, buddy?
I ask because I graduate soon and to pull off a proposal like this you'll need an Engineer's oversight... I have an offer for 70k, but I'm willing to drop to 60k for you because I believe in your cause. Alternatively you could pay for my Masters Degree and have a more effective engineer at your disposal.

Remember, if someone on their end spots a problem with your proposal, you lose credibility that it's nigh impossible to regain. You want someone to go over your proposal with a fine-tooth comb to find ANY possible inconsistency or flaw.

>>2037758
Not OP but remember that 10^5 circuits is not much for a computer chip. The amount of damage to unshielded electron circuitry is inversely proportional to the distance between the the circuits. More closely packed circuit means it is easier to arc from one to another and burn them out.

I think he might have been taking the density of of circuits on a chip aligned perpendicular to the direction of the incoming electrons and then divided that by the density of electrons over a meter of air. That would give a very rough estimate of the number of circuits hit by and electron. But without knowing which chip was being used, I can't check the numbers.

As for the the radius within which the EMP will effect circuits, remember that it is actually and oval not a sphere, unless we are launching on the equator.

>>2037861

>>2037813
Even assuming the largest possible radius for the pulse a oceanic, Alaskan, Canadian, or Russian launch would eliminate the problem by the shear area of uninhabited land available.

I say if it is internationally sanctioned a polar launch would be best. The majority of radioactive particles would be ejected from the atmosphere along the outgoing polar magnetic lines. Well probably, did we ever nuke the Arctic to test that?

>>2032654
This is why we need graphene rapid prototyping.

>>2038032
But how will they gain cohesion between the nanotubes? I'm always skeptical about proposals that say "all we need is this" or "it's just around the corner". Much like fusion power, there are often good reasons why we haven't been able to solve the problem already.

I still think launch loops are better because they have higher payload to orbit, they can run many payloads continuously instead of one at a time, the linear acceleration only the the top of the loop can be used to launch stuff into high orbit, it doesn't need any inovative engineering that could scrap the project if it does not work.

Also in the case of the space elevator you still need a huge counterweight, like a captured NEO, and what is the only way to capture an NEO and manuver it, not to mention lifting all the cable into orbit? Probably a nuclear pulse propulsion space craft.

Anyone know the price tag of a lofstrom loop?

>>2038118
I don't know, like...zap them with electricity or something.

>>2037813
>I would ... Orion one.

Well the problem is that we don't have any propulsive fuel with a higher energy density than nukes.

Ion drives only work in a vacuum for long slowly accelerations of probes.
Nuclear thermal rockets where the controlled fission heats up reaction mass are only useful on planes or in space. They can't lift themselves into LEO. And they are not as fuel efficient as nuclear pulse propulsion.
Pulsed ground based laser propulsion could work, but that is more to drive a vehicle up a space elevator as it doe not quiet have the lift capacity on its own.
Chemical rockets could be used to make a single stage to orbit space plane, but they have low payloads.
Basically without the ability to put ridiculous amounts of mass into orbit the other systems don't have an advantage over chemical rockets.

>>2032156
OP is just butthurt 'cause he won't get into space in his pathetc life like all of /sci/ including me

Bitches be ridin' bombs into outer space!

>>2038299
ZAPPING THINGS WITH ELECTRICITY WILL NOT SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS

>>2037375
O I see, last time I played was in the 90's. Just remembered Imperial Guard and Space Marine wars.
And I thought Chaos were mutants.

Fuck it, back to space.
What affect does everyone think the private industry is going to have on this?

Fucking sweet.

God I loved reading though this thread...

How would you slow down with project Orion?
If you're using nukes...
Just sayin'
Not a troll

>>2038792

Space Plan OP guy here:

Virgin Galactic got New Mexico to build them the worlds first space port and they are making more of the Space Ship Twos to send rich folk into space.
They have designs set up for Space Ship Three (satellite launching ship) and Space Ship Four (high altitude commercial aircraft) all set to go as well.

Some companies are working on habs that will allow for hotel or cruise visits and others are making different ways to get into space.

The commercial market is really getting into it and thats why I think its important for nations of the world to unite and really establish this industry so its not all on the backs of corporations alone.

Here is an interesting tid bit I figured out today, there is currently 307,006,550 residents in the US alone as of 2009. The programs to get into space will be roughly around 100 billion over the course of 10 years. What I calculated, if we can get 135 million people to be apart of this program with no help from the government or corporate sponsors, each individual would have to chip in $6.50 a month for those 10 years.

$6.50 x 135000000 people = $877500000
$877500000 x 12 months = $10530000000
$10530000000 x 10 years = $105,300,000,000

If the government and corporations get involved, it would be much cheaper. Add in other countries and the number of ships increase along with costs decreasing.

>>2037861
As for hiring you, I cannot. I am merely a ambitious college student trying to figure this all out. I got relatives in Germany, friends in China and Korea, family friend that works at the white house, know the CEOs of jack links and Coke, and little more than professors who might be interested at the University of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I was a former biomed engineer but finances and family issues kept me from pursuing that degree until I can later. I am about to graduate as well with a Management degree however.

>>2041695
Yeah it's like a mas driver.

>>2041695
The Orion, depending on design really, would launch smaller nukes to slow it down. Either by flipping the ship while in transit via thrusters, or having a forward propulsion launch platform.

The explosive propulsion idea does work. Just controversial at the moment.

Hmm isn't building in the moon much more feasible due to gravity "bonus"?
Is so, why don't we just shoot parts and/or small modules to the moon for the builders and construct spaceships&spacestations there?
Shoudn't that be much more efficient way of moving stuff, instead of using propulsion spacecrafts as carriers?

back in the 1960's they already had the concept of the nuclear fueled spaceship, which would literally blast nuclear bombs behind it to create acceleration. Too bad the government scrapped it then, must be their alien overlords telling them 'hey, you cant be goin' to space or else!!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rEqHP9dOQ

You can make it more or less efficient but it will always be the same:

An object losing mass to gain momentum

Damn you, Newton

>>2041755
But you have to get all that mass to the Moon in the first place, even if you use Lunar resources for manufacturing you still would need the original equipment to make the parts.