Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Titan: The next middle-east?

Page 4 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 Sep 2011, 5:35 pm

As long as you do not kick up a lot of dust during the launch the fallout will be negligible.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 5:37 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
As long as you do not kick up a lot of dust during the launch the fallout will be negligible.


Your proposal is dangerous and impractical. What we required is not bing-bang-coast in free fall. We we need is steady long time propulsion. With one g acceleration a ship could acquire enough velocity in two days to get to Mars in under a month.

We need something like slow burn ion drive. Not exploding fire crackers.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

15 Sep 2011, 4:39 pm

All of the radiation from the bombs will escape into space except the radiation that is captured by the dust in the air.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Sep 2011, 6:43 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
All of the radiation from the bombs will escape into space except the radiation that is captured by the dust in the air.


Would you care to solve that quantitative problem?



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

15 Sep 2011, 8:44 pm

Light the bombs on the South Pole to keep them from population centers and use radiation free hydrogen boron bombs with the smallest possible uranium trigger.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

15 Sep 2011, 9:22 pm

androbot2084, why would you want to detonate nuclear devices in atmosphere (en masse)? Simply build the Orion vessel in space, use conventional means to put it far away from the Earth, then fire off the NPP. Much simpler and safer. Antarctica doesn't deserve to become a radioactive wasteland. I'd hate to think what would happen if the ice became severely irradiated then melted. One of the prime reasons I support NPP is it involves getting nuclear weapons away from the Earth, using NPP for achieving LEO contravenes this and is completely unnecessary


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

15 Sep 2011, 9:46 pm

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion is the only economical way we can get large payloads of thousands or even millions of tons into space. Perhaps you do not like the idea because it seems so insane but really it is the only way we can do it even now.

Hydrogen bombs have the energy equivalent of thousands and even millions of times the energy of our best chemical propellants which are feeble in comparison to the energies of an atomic bomb. Until we accept nuclear power the space age has not yet begun and without nuclear their will be no colonization of Mars but rather only small robotic probes.

The technical feasibility of nuclear pulse propulsion is a very sound sane idea and with clean fusion hydrogen bombs there will be very little if any radioactive fallout. The idea that we may actually use nuclear pulse propulsion may be insane but their are cultures on Earth that would not hesitate to use the technology.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Sep 2011, 11:10 pm

Vigilans wrote:
androbot2084, why would you want to detonate nuclear devices in atmosphere (en masse)?


I doubt that whoever androbot2084 is that they actually give a flying fart about NPP or space travel in general. I think they are just attempting to act as a caricature for their own amusement.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Sep 2011, 6:06 am

androbot2084 wrote:
The technical feasibility of nuclear pulse propulsion is a very sound sane idea and with clean fusion hydrogen bombs there will be very little if any radioactive fallout. The idea that we may actually use nuclear pulse propulsion may be insane but their are cultures on Earth that would not hesitate to use the technology.


As long as thermonuclear bombs are triggered by fission bombs there will be no clean thermonuclear bombs.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Sep 2011, 8:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The technical feasibility of nuclear pulse propulsion is a very sound sane idea and with clean fusion hydrogen bombs there will be very little if any radioactive fallout. The idea that we may actually use nuclear pulse propulsion may be insane but their are cultures on Earth that would not hesitate to use the technology.


As long as thermonuclear bombs are triggered by fission bombs there will be no clean thermonuclear bombs.

ruveyn


So, now he'll probably say that it's both physically possible and totally practical to have a star onboard a spacecraft for a power source.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Sep 2011, 3:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, now he'll probably say that it's both physically possible and totally practical to have a star onboard a spacecraft for a power source.


Only if some controlled form of fusion can be found. A fusion reactor would be a min-star so to speak.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

16 Sep 2011, 3:23 pm

Laser ignition can eliminate the fission trigger.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Sep 2011, 5:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, now he'll probably say that it's both physically possible and totally practical to have a star onboard a spacecraft for a power source.


Only if some controlled form of fusion can be found. A fusion reactor would be a min-star so to speak.

ruveyn


The same qualitatively basic reactions as occurring in a star would by default be occurring in a fusion reactor, but I mean he'll probably say something more like this:

androbot2084 wrote:
Black hole power is also practical.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

16 Sep 2011, 5:12 pm

To create a black hole all you need is 144 square miles of solar panels positioned 600,000 miles from the Sun. So how much would that infrustructure weigh?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Sep 2011, 5:13 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
We could use atomic rockets to create the black hole infrastructure. All we need to do is tow a million ton asteroid and 144 square miles of solar panels to within 600,000 miles of Sun. We then aim the solar panels to cook the asteroid with trillions of degrees of heat until the whole million tons of asteroid collapses in on itself to about the size of a single atom. With all the radiation that now is emitting from the black hole we have the power necessary for space travel at close to the speed of light. With time dilation in our favor we can tour the entire milky way galaxy with a ship time of only 40 years but with an earth time of 100,000 years.


You think imparting quadrillions of Joules of heat to an object will make said object contract rather than expand? Seriously? Also you think that even if you were able to compress a given mass down to where it's imperceptible that, voila, you suddenly have a black hole? What the heck?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Sep 2011, 5:15 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
To create a black hole all you need is 144 square miles of solar panels positioned 600,000 miles from the Sun. So how much would that infrustructure weigh?


Nonsense.

ruveyn