| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
   |
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:45:00 -
[1]
Short answer:
1) We don't really have anywhere to go that would make nuclear propulsion worth it. It doesn't do you much good to have an awesome engine when you don't have the long-term life support required for the crew (with unmanned probes, it's easier to just be patient and let gravity do the work), so why invest the time and money? You'd need to have a dramatic change in politics to make manned space travel a priority before developing nuclear propulsion becomes useful.
2) OMG NUKES ARE SCARY. Good luck getting anyone to risk losing their election over nuclear spacecraft when space travel isn't a priority for anyone.
But mostly it's the first problem. Technology-wise, there's no reason we can't do it, but we don't have the political willpower it would require.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:30:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mister Cletus
Unless I am unintentionally reading too much into your post, you seem to suggest that nuclear space travel would indeed be a safe and realistic possibility but it is other outside political influences that prevent the development of such a system.
Realistic? Sure. While we (obviously) don't have a working prototype, the theory behind it looks just fine and there's no reason to suspect that we couldn't build one if we wanted to. This isn't a guarantee, but it's at least as realistic as any of the alternatives.
Safe? Well, at least no worse than any other form of propulsion. Space travel, at least in the foreseeable future, is never going to be safe.
Quote:
Although I agree that nukes can be scary when talking about bombs, if they use nuclear power safely and effectively for sea going vessels and power generating applications, I don't think that would be scary at all.
That's exactly the point. The actual safety of nuclear propulsion/etc has absolutely nothing to do with the general perception that OMG NUKES ARE REALLY SCARY. People are just idiots, and it prevents legitimate work from being done because the politicians are too spineless to risk votes.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 23:16:00 -
[3]
Originally by: dr cisco
nuclear ban treaties, politics always gets in the way of SCIENCE. It may be a powerful weapon but don't make NASA suffer if they want to use it as a power source!
Treaties don't get in the way of anything. If there was actually enough political willpower to build Orion (or any other form of nuclear propulsion), the treaties could just be modified to allow an exception.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 04:04:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Selinate
There is no way to magically turn matter that you just collect randomly into energy
Note that:
1) Fuel =/= reaction mass. You can get away with just harvesting random matter if you're using heat from a nuclear reactor to provide energy to the matter you're throwing out the back of your rocket.
2) The most common element in the universe is hydrogen, which is excellent fuel for fusion.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 19:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
If it would be any good I¦d tell you to research the outer LEO radiation problem or the concept of the Van Allen Belts in general, but borderline ******ed peeps like you don¦t much care for facts when it contradicts their precious textbooks and "common knowledge" as seen on the TeeVee.
Wait, you actually don't believe we went to the moon? I thought people that stupid were just a myth!
Anyway, ever hear of this thing called the cold war? You know, this minor event that was going on around the time we put people on the moon? Well, guess what the Soviets would have done if we had faked the whole thing (physics 101: it would be incredibly obvious if we did). Could "tell the entire world and make the Americans look really bad" possibly be on that list? Just maybe?
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 05:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Selinate
I am either a terrible troll, or an idiot.
I really need to learn physics before I come back to this thread.
Yes, you are entirely correct. Here is a the result of 30 seconds of research into the subject: Bussard ramjet. Perhaps you should read at least the most basic explanations before you make any more ignorant posts?
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 01:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: ivar R'dhak
But it¦s not my job to dispel Nasa & textbook myths you peeps believe in.
That¦s your own problem.
So I take it you have no answer for why the Soviets didn't provide proof (easy to do if NASA really did fake the moon landings) that the US was lying about going to the moon, even when doing so would have destroyed US credibility on a scale they could only dream of?
Not that I really expect you to answer, of course, since anything you could say would only make you look like more of a paranoid nutcase.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 18:52:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 13/02/2011 18:53:29
Originally by: Selinate
You're a complete moron. Do you know how much energy it would require to make those electromagnetic fields?
Do you? Have you actually designed, in full detail, all of the required systems and calculated exactly how much energy is required to produce the electromagnetic fields? Or are you just guessing?
PS: congratulations on once again missing the importance of this little thing called "reaction mass". The advantage of the Bussard ramjet is not producing net energy gain, it's the ability to get reaction mass without carrying large (and heavy) tanks of it on your rocket. The energy required to produce the fields can be produced by a nuclear reactor (great energy source, not a source of reaction mass) without breaking the design.
Quote:
The density of hydrogen is FAR too low to justify the energy you'd get from fusion, especially from the fact that the majority of the hydrogen in space (actually a larger majority than it is here on earth) is actually hydrogen-1 instead of deuterium, which is primarily used in fusion reactors.
Oh hey, 30 seconds of wikipedia research (probably more than you've done on the subject) tells me that this question is still up for debate. Perhaps you should offer your brilliant insights to the scientists involved and tell them that you've already solved the problem?
Quote:
Even with the amount you'd gain, I'd guess right off the bat that the energy required to form those electromagnetic fields would FAR outweigh the amount of energy you'd get from fusing the particles together.
You'd guess? I thought you were absolutely certain about this? You know, with absolutely undeniable facts and all that. You mean you don't actually know the answer, and you're just guessing and calling anyone who disagrees with your guess an idiot?
Quote:
Let me go ahead and spoil it for you. A vast vast majority of these designs will never work. That one you just mentioned, for the reason I just mentioned.
You're right, failed designs are part of engineering. That's why we need to actually invest money in research and try to build the various designs, not just guess that they won't work and give up.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Selinate
And since I've actually done a lot of these calculations and I know the kind of energy it takes to form these magnetic fields and how much fusion gives off, yes, I'm certain you idiot. Now go try and learn stuff from a reputable source, not wikipedia.
Please keep going on and on about energy required vs. energy produced and ignoring the fact that the point is getting reaction mass, not net energy. It's really amusing to watch a self-proclaimed "expert" fail to even understand the basic principles of the design they're talking about. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 19:28:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Selinate
Again, keep trying. Your understanding of our physical universe is such a cluster **** of failure, it's only rivaled by know-it-all high school freshmen who think that because they've read a couple of wikipedia articles, they know what they're talking about.
Yep, right on schedule, yet another post of "LOL U SUCK AT PYSICS" without even a minimal attempt at explaining:
1) What errors I have made. And given that I'm quoting actual experts (you know, people paid to design rockets, not forum "experts") who presumably have more than a high school understanding of physics, I seriously doubt this "error" is anything as basic as you claim.
2) Your laughable misunderstanding of the entire purpose of the Bussard ramjet, as demonstrated by the fact that you keep ranting on and on about net energy losses.
Conclusion: you're nothing more than the usual forum "expert" who got caught in a basic mistake and is now flailing desperately for a way out. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.14 05:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Selinate
The reason I'm not explaining it is because of the same reason that folks like Brian Greene always talk about the wonders of modern physics in front of huge audiences, but never explains why it happens the way he explains it. It's over your head, just like it's over the 45 year old soccer mom with a degree in Business's head. It would take pages to explain it to you, and I'm not going to put in the effort for your sake.
Well, fortunately YOUR mistakes are simple enough that I can explain them very easily. Let's start with Rockets 101:
If you want go go anywhere, you need to throw something in the opposite direction, preferably at high velocity. No matter how much energy you have, if you don't have something moving in the opposite direction you aren't going anywhere. This something is called "reaction mass". Normally, to get anywhere useful, you need large amounts of it. This of course adds tons of mass to your rocket, which means you need more thrust to get anywhere, which means you need more reaction mass to get that thrust, and so on in the spiral of death.
The point of the Bussard ramjet is that you don't need to carry your reaction mass with you since you collect it as you go. This significantly reduces the mass of your rocket, allowing much better performance and making it a lot easier to launch into orbit.
Net energy gain has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the Bussard ramjet. Need power for the fields? Bring a nuclear (fission) reactor to provide it, problem solved. Your endless rants about net energy gain only prove that you don't even understand the most basic principles of the subject you are trying to argue about.
-----------
|
| |
|