Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 110815.htm

bizarre. melting as you get cooler. that's a paper i want to see.

@ST: read up a bit more on pair instability supernovae. not yet entirely clear how it works but pretty interesting nonetheless.

Last edited by Spark (2010-08-04 05:54:59)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
pace51
Boom?
+194|5144|Markham, Ontario
Anyone have on of those videos of the awesome explosion by chlorine and sodium resulting in delicious table salt?
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

Spark wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802110815.htm

bizarre. melting as you get cooler. that's a paper i want to see.
Do you not have access to that journal?

Spark wrote:

@ST: read up a bit more on pair instability supernovae. not yet entirely clear how it works but pretty interesting nonetheless.
It relies on the spontaneous production of electron/positron pairs, which saps the thermal energy of the star, which in turn drops the thermal pressure, which makes the star collapse under its own gravity.  Fascinating stuff!
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6470|so randum

pace51 wrote:

Anyone have on of those videos of the awesome explosion by chlorine and sodium resulting in delicious table salt?
youtube...
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_ma … ugust_2010

These bloody clouds had better move.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

M.O.A.B wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_ma … ugust_2010

These bloody clouds had better move.
I thought they'd already hit!  Hmmm...I'm at 43N latitude.  I don't think I'll be able to see any aurorae... 
BLdw
..
+27|5142|M104 "Sombrero"

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Cant believe no-ones posted these:

http://www.symphonyofscience.com./
The Mars vid is depressing. I'll probably be dead before any country gets the gumption to send a manned mission. >
Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right. https://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/BLdw/wink2.gif

Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

BLdw wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Cant believe no-ones posted these:

http://www.symphonyofscience.com./
The Mars vid is depressing. I'll probably be dead before any country gets the gumption to send a manned mission. >
Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right. http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/BLdw/wink2.gif

Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
He's talking about Project Orion, if anyone wants to read more.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/0 … crack.html

if true - and i am always somewhat reserved about saying so without a full mathematically confirmed proof - then this is massive. i don't fully understand the problem but i know some of the implications of such a result. (not least because the guy is an instant millionaire)

Last edited by Spark (2010-08-10 01:00:17)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
BLdw
..
+27|5142|M104 "Sombrero"

SenorToenails wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right. http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/BLdw/wink2.gif

Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
He's talking about Project Orion, if anyone wants to read more.
In 2018 - 2022 we may have our first nuclear powered spacecraft.

I wonder if we have our first space elevator before that
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100810/twl … f21e0.html
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5932|Places 'n such

BLdw wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right. http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/BLdw/wink2.gif

Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
He's talking about Project Orion, if anyone wants to read more.
In 2018 - 2022 we may have our first nuclear powered spacecraft.

I wonder if we have our first space elevator before that
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100810/twl … f21e0.html
nuclear and flying seems like a very bad mix to me...
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

presidentsheep wrote:

nuclear and flying seems like a very bad mix to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

It's been done.
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5932|Places 'n such

SenorToenails wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

nuclear and flying seems like a very bad mix to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

It's been done.
If it was 100% reliable then sure, the only thing i'm worried about is the quantity of radioactive substance floating about attached to things that could potentially explode.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

presidentsheep wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

nuclear and flying seems like a very bad mix to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

It's been done.
If it was 100% reliable then sure, the only thing i'm worried about is the quantity of radioactive substance floating about attached to things that could potentially explode.
I can understand that, however there are massive differences between nuclear powered aircraft flying around in earth's atmosphere and a nuclear-explosion powered spacecraft.

In space, the residuals of a nuclear detonation would be inconsequential...of course, you do need to get it off the ground with a nuke...that could be troubling to some.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:

In space, the residuals of a nuclear detonation would be inconsequential...of course, you do need to get it off the ground with a nuke...that could be troubling to some.
Why?
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

In space, the residuals of a nuclear detonation would be inconsequential...of course, you do need to get it off the ground with a nuke...that could be troubling to some.
Why?
Why what?

If there is fallout in space, why would it cause a problem?  People don't live in the vacuum of space and there is far more harmful radiation out there anyway.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85
Why would you have to get it off the ground with a nuke?
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5932|Places 'n such

SenorToenails wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


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

It's been done.
If it was 100% reliable then sure, the only thing i'm worried about is the quantity of radioactive substance floating about attached to things that could potentially explode.
I can understand that, however there are massive differences between nuclear powered aircraft flying around in earth's atmosphere and a nuclear-explosion powered spacecraft.

In space, the residuals of a nuclear detonation would be inconsequential...of course, you do need to get it off the ground with a nuke...that could be troubling to some.
The space part is fine, just think how much worse plane crashes would be if each one was carrying nuclear fuel.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

presidentsheep wrote:

The space part is fine, just think how much worse plane crashes would be if each one was carrying nuclear fuel.
Yes, true.  Depends on how the fuel is stored, etc, but I get your point.
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5932|Places 'n such

SenorToenails wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

The space part is fine, just think how much worse plane crashes would be if each one was carrying nuclear fuel.
Yes, true.  Depends on how the fuel is stored, etc, but I get your point.
Though if the fuel can be stored safely then it's a damn awesome idea.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why would you have to get it off the ground with a nuke?
The entire point of project orion was to launch huge spacecraft.  Like, proposals for up to 8 million tons.  The space shuttle can carry 26.8 tons to LEO, but the early designs for spacecraft using nuclear propulsion started at 4,000 tons...what kind of rocket could get that off the ground?  Of course, it would take 800 0.15kt nuclear detonations to carry that 4000 ton spacecraft to LEO.

Now, that is theoretical since it obviously hasn't been built...
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85
you take pieces into space and assemble it there...
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

you take pieces into space and assemble it there...
That would defeat a huge benefit of the project.  It would take 200 shuttle missions to get all that mass into LEO.  There have only been 132 shuttle launches since the program started in 1981.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-08-11 10:55:22)

Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85
The huge benefit of the project is nuclear propulsion in space. Not getting the ship into space.

Many programs culminating in the ISS have proven that if you want to build something big in space, you take it up in pieces and assemble it there. It makes infinitely more sense than constraining the design of the object to the transportation limitations for a trip it is only going to make once.

Using a shuttle that wasn't designed with the purpose of building an object orders of magnitude larger than anything we have built in space so far is a stupid argument against. If you're going to build a 4000 ton space vehicle you build the fucking transportation you need to get it to space too.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The huge benefit of the project is nuclear propulsion in space. Not getting the ship into space.
I said a huge benefit.  If the saturn V were used, it would take about 30 trips.  Or launch with a massive payload from the ground and do it once.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Many programs culminating in the ISS have proven that if you want to build something big in space, you take it up in pieces and assemble it there. It makes infinitely more sense than constraining the design of the object to the transportation limitations for a trip it is only going to make once.
OK...?  This proves nothing other than man has found a way to get larger objects in space than what chemical rockets directly limit.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Using a shuttle that wasn't designed with the purpose of building an object orders of magnitude larger than anything we have built in space so far is a stupid argument against. If you're going to build a 4000 ton space vehicle you build the fucking transportation you need to get it to space too.
Right, and one could argue that the appropriate launch vehicle is an orion vehicle with 800 nuclear detonations.  Or suppose you wanted to make a far larger spacecraft than 4000 tons?  Perhaps 4000000 tons?  Should we still use chemical rockets to bring the pieces to space?  Orion vehicles would be far more efficient in that case.  Of course, a space elevator would solve both those issues (potentially) but that doesn't exist yet.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-08-11 11:23:48)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard