What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
64 Comments
- vsaint, on 10/11/2008, -4/+36Stupid space. Let's nuke the ***** out of it.
- divinediva, on 10/11/2008, -4/+20hugely entertaining
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -1/+16I don't know about nuclear powered rockets, but there is a lot of political ***** in terms of science going on with space these days. NASA wanted to and could have trashed the hubble space telescope and build a telescope two times better and launched it for the same cost as this repair. But no.. outrage from the public and astrophysicists who actually use the equipment were put on in back seat. And there is also ***** in regards to nuclear energy, instead of having to make these course corrections (via the shuttle every time it comes) on satellites and stations like the ISS due to huge solar panels causing drag through the ultra-thin atmosphere up there, we could have just powered them by a nuclear reactor. In fact, that's what scientists wanted to do. A hippie outrage later we have to keep boosting the ISS back into proper orbit every time and we have to keep preparing the solar panels, parts of which have broken more than once.
- armakaryk, on 10/11/2008, -1/+14ah the 50's, when everything could be powered by nuclear bombs.
- vsaint, on 10/11/2008, -1/+14What if we put two nukes together? What then smart guy?
- Sloi, on 10/11/2008, -3/+15Paging Bruce Willis...
- TyrannousDotNet, on 10/11/2008, -0/+12much more info from the actual source! ( a first hand account)
george dyson (the son of the creator of orion) talking about it at TED conference, very interesting
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_dyson_on ... - DarkSpan, on 10/11/2008, -1/+11What excellent illustrations
- inactive, on 10/11/2008, -3/+12I believe atomic propulsion system is the way forward. If we want to break out of the milky way, we need something with a real punch.. ok we just need to figure out how to control the explosion..
- Cerebron, on 10/11/2008, -0/+8Could also be useful to defeat the Fithp, should they attempt Footfall on our humble planet.
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -1/+8They built a nuclear powered plane:
http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-amer ... - frazw, on 10/11/2008, -1/+6How about a board with a nail in it?
- jawagas, on 10/11/2008, -1/+5That really is an awesome speech on Ted. Orion really is the coolest name for anything
- baseballbear, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4science, ***** yeah
- g33b33, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3great book.
Dugg for being a reader. - TheGreatBelow, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Cliff Burton!
- FulcrumVitesse, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3If you like this, go read Anathem by Neal Stephenson. One of the best books I have read, it's a real nerd's delight.
- Dagreenman, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Atomic Machine Gun would make an awesome band name.
- inactive, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Break our way out of the Milky Way?? This type of propulsion system would take decades just to reach the nearest star 4 light years away. This was designed for travel in our solar system, thats it. Unless you can find a way to warp space, change the laws of physics or find an old unused, jumpgate or stargate, then the Milky Way is all we will know.
- UberRocket, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3This is a great compendium page of nuclear powered vehicles and delivery system - thanks for putting it together.
Being a small child in the 60's with a huge interest in all things Space-y, I absolutely remember Project Orion, and its various incantations - it was a serious proposal...and "nuclear power is bad" comments not withstanding, it's not without it merit.
Another fun-fact that the article doesn't mention that that the Discovery, from 2001, was powered by Orion engines. (Arthur C. Clarke talks about the specifics of it in the book version of 2001.) The reason Discovery looks like giant sperm in the first place is to keep the nuclear detonation component far from the crew cabin, and separated by radiation proof linkages in the long assemblage between the engines and the spherical crew cabin. The reason stated in the book that Discovery was powered by an Orion engine was that the US had to get to Saturn (the target planet in the book was Saturn, not Jupiter as it is in the movie) as fast as possible once the monolith on the moon started broadcasting, so they dug around the NASA wastebins to find anything they could that they could cobble together quickly. - wacked, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Agreed, TSK05, to some extent. Until we have the technology to build a space elevator, we shouldn't not play a dangerous game in using a nuclear reactor to power excursions through the atmosphere. Up there we should definitely be planning on building a reactor to power a proper space station. We're not even close to having enough money dedicated to the building of something much more permanent and physically secure, and that could properly house a nuclear reactor. Frankly, NASA and the military should share the same research and development programs, and in their entirety; limiting military integration solely to this purpose, and to the patent and sale of new innovations and discoveries to either specific American controlled military contractors or the the civilian market when appropriate. This would give them more money; not to say that their budget shouldn't be increased anyway! Space commercialization should be the priority of western countries, as it will be a very important part of the future of our economies; should we wish them to remain strong, and continue developing faster than the rest of the emergent world. NASA is currently a civilian organization, and it's success has been helped by the interest of civilians in it's missions and experiments. At times the government has used NASA flippantly and solely to galvanize the populace's support of the current administration. It's an organization between a rock and a hard place, with a bureaucracy that's probably comparable to that of some smaller foreign governments. And yet, it's still the most incredible civilian research agency on the planet, and has to me become one of the greatest human achievements of this age. The human race is growing up. If we don't kill ourselves anytime soon we may yet become a spacefaring species!
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2would you please link me to where you got this information from? I have no record of the NB-36 crashing.
- rz8472, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2There was also Project Daedalus in the 1970s, which was a huge robot-controlled fusion torch craft designed to survey nearby Alpha Centauri.
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2dugg for the weird steampunk shuttle
- Vector713, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2You know you could just, like, cancel the account, right? It's pretty easy.
- geoffg, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Why the ***** are you being dugg down?
- Licurgo, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2if the cannon is made of some material like diamond or something, maybe works
- Bith8654, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3So a double barreled air gun? Twice as mildly annoying!
- xptoast, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2How about a real reactor that is similar to a nuclear reactor that would have a few stages.
1. Start nuclear reactor that needs cooling by means of passing water through the reactor core and the tube through another tank that cools it...this case that tank could be in the ocean. Steam produced by the insane temperatures could be made to be held in a pressurized tank.
2. Release pressure sending the initial forces required to launch.
3. Core then is cooled by forced air intake. The air is then heated and pushed out similar to a rocket.
4. Once in space where you no longer have air launch the main pod by having the nuclear core pressurize a held tank of water or gas. That way when the two sections blow apart by means of this pressure it would throw one piece back to earth and the main pod deep into space where rockets could do the rest of the work...
Or.....
Skip all that ***** and go straight to having a nuclear power plant power a ion thruster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster - MCA2142, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2You need mo eh-ju-ma-kay-shun
- sanman, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Forget Orion -- let's have a nuclear-powered scramjet, to lift the heaviest payloads possible.
- satori3000, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1true, my real point here was that they threw the concept of atomic powered anything around in this time period. There are examples of it working quite well.
- xptoast, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Good read.
- migshark, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Different kind of propulsion. That's essentially the same as what has come to be commonplace in ships and subs.
- mnetlucas, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Why does Project Pluto have a penis?
- Eqxy, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2So much for environmentally friendly modes of transportation...
- fustercluck, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1I second that...
- inactive, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1lol oh wow so this will be the excuse for surrounding the earth with orbital bombardment installations
- chevymanusa, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2diggafrica - ".. ok we just need to figure out how to control the explosion.."
That's what she said!
-Science rules
if you bury me, you are burying Science - inactive, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1***** YEAR
- palehorse864, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Have to love the delayed laughter on some of his puns. "My Dad didn't want to send his kids, that's why we had a falling out."
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1A) Use the reply button so I would see this faster :P
B) "Until we have the technology to build a space elevator, we shouldn't not play a dangerous game in using a nuclear reactor to power excursions through the atmosphere. Up there we should definitely be planning on building a reactor to power a proper space station."
I am not sure if you're saying that we shouldn't launch anything with nuclear reactors at all because it's not safe until we have a space elevator so that we can build it here and then take it up through a space elevator or if you're saying no nuclear powered rockets but nuclear powered generators in space are ok.
I would note that there are already nuclear powered satellites, some using RTG's and some using something else probably. There is no other way for satellites in low orbit (like say....spy satellites) to stay in orbit, and we know already that some of the old soviet union satellites used nuclear reactors (because some of them leaked..). I say keep going. NASA says keep going. Hippies say stop. - BedPost, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1haphazardly, that's how.
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1There is so much to explore in our own solar system. Enough to keep scientists busy for a hundred years. There is no reason to go beyond until we see what's in our own backyard first.
- starmanjones, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1i have no idea. :D
but i did run across this. freeman dysons son.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_dyson_on ... - Psalms83, on 10/21/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/al_Qaida_Global_Firebal ...
- wacked, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1I agree with you there. It'll take a ballsy president to make this happen, but I would say we haven't gone there yet because we've been erring on the side of caution. It will inevitably happen, but probably not soon enough for either of us.
PS. lol. sorry, been hoping around watching the Palin power abuse story start to emerge in mainstream online news. :P - savagesteve13, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1We had tested a working nuclear engine. They didn't test it too many times because it spits out lots of radiation but it does work.
- KudDukan, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0There is no way that nuclear propulsion will get us out of the Milky Way. Even going at the speed of light(and getting anyone near that speed is another matter entirely), it would take several years to reach the nearest star, let alone another galaxy.
- ASSASSYN360, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1As if there wasn't enough radiation in space to deal with.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is