[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 63 KB, 800x347, 1295817073621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2520802 No.2520802 [Reply] [Original]

Why don't we use nuclear fission for space travel?

>> No.2520821

Long story short, people are afraid of radiation and fallout from any accident.

>> No.2520820

1. Same reason we don't use propellers(common sense)
2. How to harness the heat?

Pick one.

>> No.2520842

>>2520820
You might be able to use the seebeck effect... probably not.

>>2520802
Nuclear fission for space travel just doesn't seem necessary. Until we actually have a huge jump in technology, practically speaking, there really aren't many interesting places to go where we can't already go with the technology we currently have.

>> No.2520851

>>2520820
What if you use the emitted neutrons as thrust?

>> No.2520852

>>2520802

Power isn't enough and, as yet, electricity has no useful function in space propulsion.

>> No.2520865

>>2520802

It would take one hell of a nuclear reaction to break Earth's gravity.

>> No.2520867

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

>> No.2520929

>>2520820
We could blow up nuclear bombs behind the spacecraft in space

>> No.2520947

>>2520929
And how would that generate thrust?

>> No.2520950

>>2520802

The atmospheric test ban treaty. Also known as the No Fun protocol.

>> No.2520954

>>2520950
How would blowing up nuclear bombs behind the craft in space generate any significant thrust?

>> No.2520959
File: 455 KB, 2560x1920, CIMG0083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2520959

wow, finally a reason to post a picture from my cosmos book

thanks carl

>> No.2520969

>>2520954
How does the Sun burn in space if there is no oxygen?
0/10

>> No.2520973

>>2520959
>cosmos book

wait
WHAT

>> No.2520976

>>2520852

Not once VASIMR gets going. Exhaust velocity is orders of magnitude higher than chemical propulsion BUT it consumes a fuckton of electricity. So much, in fact, that only a nuclear reactor would be practical to power it.

>>2520954
>>

Awesomely, that's how.

Specifically, read the link on nuclear pulse propulsion. It was seriously pursued by NASA prior to the ban on atmospheric testing.

>> No.2520989

>>2520976
I seriously don't know - is it because of the particles that would fly off from the nuclear blast in space and push the craft? Or is it because of a huge energetic radiation burst? (radiation pressure)

>> No.2521007

>>2520802
Some genius banned the use of nukes in space. Good luck trying to get any nuke-related ban lifted.

>> No.2521010
File: 1.29 MB, 3851x2543, cosmos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2521010

>>2520973
yep

If you've already seen the TV series they just about cover the same thing but I wanted to have the book anyways. Had it for year and year but never really read it since the info in it is, like I said, essentially the same as in the PBS show.

Pics related - bad flash

>> No.2521055
File: 74 KB, 342x400, orionpunit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2521055

>>2520989

Now, it's the mass of the bomb (now plasma) stricking the ship's pusher place.

This is a nuclear explosive optimized for propulsion. The radiation case focuses the x-ray and gamma radiation from the explosion upwards, where it is focused by the channel into the cap at the top, which is vaporized and blasted straight back towards the ship.

Note that this image contains an error: there is no such thing as "non-fissionable" uranium. All uranium is fissionable, though only U-233 and U-235 are fissile. Presumably it is meant to imply that the radiation case is depleted uranium, which would be cheaper and still provide good radiation focusing.

>> No.2521059
File: 46 KB, 711x576, c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2521059

Pick one.
1: pic related

>> No.2521060
File: 117 KB, 1000x754, 1289126955323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2521060

>>2521055
If we start building lots of ships like this with the bombs for them, to launch about 30 of them every year, how soon will we run out of uranium?

>> No.2521066

How about Nuclear Fusion

>> No.2521068

>>2520852
Ion and Hall effect thrusters, both electrical thrusters, used to keep our sattelites in orbit since the 70's. Also used on some probes to the planetoids (Eris, etc)

>> No.2521070

>>2521060

Don't know, but there is still thorium breeder reactors for the production of fissile fuel.

Thorium also happens to be fairly common and easy to detect thru much of the solar system. Self-correcting problem!

>> No.2521082

>>2521060

There's more Uranium on Earth than Tin. It should last us a bit.

>> No.2521090

>>2521066
We can't even do nuclear fusion on earth, let alone in space.
And why bring our own nuclear fusion reactors when there's a fucking huge one sitting in the middle of our solar system?
Hence solar panels. Although that isn't so much propulsion as power.
Solar sails then.

>> No.2521095

>>2521090
Nuclear (fission) pulse propulsion - far better and effective

>> No.2521097

>>2521090

Is it possible to tack in solar wind?

>> No.2521137

>>2521097
wat

>> No.2521146

cuz my dick is so long it wraps around the globe
sending shit off balance like a floppy ear lobe
If ya tried to fissure my load it would explode
up in OPs mouf cuz he's a choad

time to pamper my ballsack in the shower
you're all dead to me!

>> No.2521158

>>2521097

Tacking requires fluid properties that vacuum does not have.

If you're just asking if it's possible to sail into the solar wind, then yes, there are some means to do that.

>> No.2521168

Why don't we use reactionless drives for space travel?

>> No.2521176

>>2521168
Why don't we use magnets for space travel?

Magnet car is stupid, air resistance will prevent it from working. But there is no air in space (checkmate, atheists, the Sun can't be on fire), hence magnet starship will work.

>> No.2521181

>Project Orion
>Worked
>Jews.

>> No.2521225

I will tell you a story about a little boy who went to the store and found an atom on the floor

>> No.2521257

>>2521225
rofl

>> No.2521812

radiation

>> No.2521979
File: 81 KB, 640x480, leaving-earth-1l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2521979

http://web.archive.org/web/20071022133749rn_1/www.mfbb.net/nuclearrockets/nuclearrockets-about12.htm
l
All the Original Project Orion Documents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Because a bunch of faggots signed the SALTII and Outer Space Treaty. There is no technical reason not to use nuclear pulse propulsion. It has higher specific impulse, it can lift millions of tons into LEO, and each launch would only result in 0.1 death due to any effect of the radiation released. Which is less than number of deaths that result from building anything more than ten stories tall.

We could be travelling to Mars in two weeks or Saturn in two months. But no, because our decision makers are a bunch of faggots that don't want awesome space imperialism and nuclear wars on other planets.

Humanity I am disappoint.

>> No.2522165

>>2521979
basically this

>> No.2522884

nice troll thread
8/10

>> No.2523127

>>2520820
I don't think that you really understand the principle behind nuclear pulse propulsion. The point of the fission detonation is to turn a disc of polymer propellant into plasma, which will strike the pressure plate with a high velocity, thus delivering energy to the spacecraft after passing through a shock absorbing system.

See Freeman Dyson's "Physic's Today" article on interstellar travel by way of a "Super Orion" for details. Another (slightly different) variation was Project Daedalus, which was planned to use a laser-initiated fusion reaction to reach a star 5 light years away.

>> No.2525065

what would an orion engine, or many, do to the magnetosphere?

>> No.2525113

Aren't there significant issues getting rid of waste heat from a nuclear reaction in the vacuum of space?

inb4 herp-derp, it's really cold in space.