A diamond hull will not be enough!

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 12, 2004

a_lost_packet_-"all I have done is support the claim that the ablative and thermal tests conducted during the Orion Project were valid" maddad - For the tests to be valid, the materials would have to be examined after the test. Exactly which test was it that was valid, packet? Was it the test where two tons of concrete ablated into a superheated plasma in 31 miliseconds, or the test where the manhole cover left the test site at six times Earth's escape velocity, never to be seen again? Which one of those two are you claiming was the successful test for resistance to ablation? What are you talking about? Those are not the tests that I have been discussing. I have repeatedly stated that these were not involved in Project Orion yet you keep referring to them. The examples you present are not the tests to which I have been referring to over the entire history of my posts on this thread. Are you bringing this up to cloud the issue or something? The tests to which I refer and defend are detailed in the link(s) that I have provided. I will not spoon-feed you. You are capable of clicking and looking up the links yourself. Go back to one of my many previous posts which contains a link referring to "Project Orion, It's Death, Life and Possible Rebirth." Read it and then come back and present a substantive rebuttal. Sheesh, I have even told you at least three times how to rebut/refute the experimental evidence. Maddad, read this closely; I told you on purpose how to go about refuting the experimental evidence in hopes that you would figure it out and present a decent rebuttal instead of the garbage you have been pounding out. Really maddad, if you are going to attempt to flame/bash someone, you should at least be passingly familiar with the material you are discussing. a_lost_packet_-"these specific tests have no bearing on Orio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

nexium · Oct 12, 2004

Hi maddad: I would think, a university site would typically be more correct than NASA or other government sites. Neil

Maddad · Oct 13, 2004

nexium I didn't really think there should be anything wrong with packet's site, but I just like yanking his chain to see how loud he yelps.

Maddad · Oct 13, 2004

packet "Those are not the tests that I have been discussing." Then you need to stop talking about them, using them to support Orion. You yapped about the manhole cover five times in your last post. You like to paste a huge long laundry list material from other sites, but you would do better to just state which two tests were almost simultaneous, and give us their names, dates, and times. And of course provide us with the URL. Otherwise you're just throwing up a smoke screen. "They were offered only to refute your constant denial that no such type of testing has ever taken place." Your problem is that you need almost simultaneous tests, not simultanesou tests, to support Orion. Since you are the one pushing Orion, saying that it's been tested, you need to substantiate your claim by giving us the nearly simultaneous tests that demonstrated this. <big>You still have not provided this support.</big> "You do realize that what you are referring to has no connection with the tests or examinations of empirical evidence performed by Project Orion do you not?" Good. I am glad that you finally get it. There is no empirical evidence performed by Project Orion. Your manhole cover, the concrete plug, and put-put are not admissible evidence, so you have nothing. There isn't anything that's ever been tested, so Orion's never been supported. "Honey? I'm sorry maddad but I am not interested in you nor am I female." You're as logical as one. "I provided commentary to tell you that there is evidence that it survived in the form of film footage." We saw a streak in the film footage. Nothing that we could measure. We can't even say if it was solid or not. All we could say about it is that something appeared in one single frame.

chew_on_this · Oct 13, 2004

If you say there is no evidence to prove the Orion concept, then there is also no evidence to disprove it also. Sounds to me like you have a predisposition against the Orion concept, judging by your rude responses. Or maybe it's just your daddy didn't give you enough attention as a child? I don't think I've ever seen a "goofy" response from packet that wasn't intended to be as such. I can't say as much for you.

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 13, 2004

Maddad - You keep throwing out red-herrings and addressing issues that have nothing to do with my support of the validity of the tests and examinations conducted during Project Orion. Everything you have addressed in your latest post has nothing to do with anything that I am talking about. You refuse to look at the information I have provided and, instead, wish to continue trolling the thread with inane and abusive commentary hoping someone will provide you some childish entertainment. maddad - the entire claim to scientific support for Orion goes down the toilet, where it belongs. It appears that "the toilet" is where you are most comfortable looking for scientific support. You continually flush it, hoping to establish a "winning point." Maddad, you are a very weak debater and totally incapable of even the simplest argumentative discourse. If you concentrated on the issues at hand instead of trying to continually go the "lazy route" perhaps you could improve your technique. Nothing that you have said can be substantiated. However, everything that I have said has already been substantiated. Your continued and feeble attempts at taking my statements out of context is lamentable. I had hoped for more substantive commentary from you. I have repeatedly addressed all of your statements in your last post. I refuse to coddle you any further. Scroll up to my previous posts in order to receive rebuttals to your repeated, invective laden squeaks. I have demonstratably proven that you are incapable of reasonable discourse when discussing what constitutes "experimental evidence." You may yell and pound the keyboard but no amount of misleading statements will change the fact that you have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Your dogged use of "red-herrings" in an argument is boorish. If you will not acknowledge the many previous rebuttals I have made to your statements the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 13, 2004

maddad - I didn't really think there should be anything wrong with packet's site, but I just like yanking his chain to see how loud he yelps. Well, it's not my site.. whatever one you are referring to. As far as your "chain yanking" behavior is concerned, that has been obvious for the past five or so of your latest posts. I didn't miss your transparent attempts. I responded in kind because it humored me to do so. The best tactic to use when you are being "baited" is to give someone enough "rope" so that they make a foolish example of themselves. I don't believe the tactic was proven ineffective as demonstrated by my use of it in this thread. School is out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

jcdenton · Oct 13, 2004

<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> We're going in to overtime here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 13, 2004

True. It's gone on long enough. If anyone finds where I have been in error or have misrepresented information then quote it and I will be happy to address or correct it. (If it hasn't already been rebutted and answered previously that is. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) Otherwise, it's at an end. Maddad, it's done now. Let's leave it be. Funtime is over. Let's stop the thread hijack. Sorry for the derailment guys. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 15, 2004

chew_on_this "If you say there is no evidence to prove the Orion concept, then there is also no evidence to disprove it also. I am perfectly comfortable with that statement. The Orion boys insist that they have experimental evidence in support of the project. My contention is that it does not exist. There is a secondary issue that I have not yet taken up with the packets of Orion supporters. The feel that there is no qualitative difference between the temperatures involved in a nuclear blast and those of a chemical one. (Chemical reactions involve temperatures up to about 10,000 Kelvin; nuclear blasts run up to 100,000,000 Kelvin.) The difference is astonishing, between three and four orders of magnitude. It's like comparing the temperature of liquid helium, close to absolute zero at 6 Kelvin, and that of the surface of the Sun at 6,000 Kelvin. It's like saying that because the liquid helium will not melt through steel that the Sun cannot either. packet "Nothing that you have said can be substantiated. I do not have to substantiate it; you do. You are the one saying that we have experimental support for Orion; I make no such obviously flawed claim. "everything that I have said has already been substantiated. Yes. You have posted reams of data. An endless smokescreen, but you have left out the vital information that needed substantiation. Since you claim that materials have experience almost no ablation from exposure to nuclear blasts, you have to provide the materials that did so. Your problem is that none of these materials survived. There is nothing that we can hold in our hand and say, "This plate was 30 centimeters thick, +- 0.001 centimeters, before the blast. It was exposed at 3.5 meters from blast. After the blast it was 29.985 centimeters thick, experiencing on

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 15, 2004

a_lost_packet_-...everything that I have said has already been substantiated... maddad - but you have left out the vital information that needed substantiation. Since you claim that materials have experience almost no ablation from exposure to nuclear blasts, you have to provide the materials that did so. Your problem is that none of these materials survived. There is nothing that we can hold in our hand and say, "This plate was 30 centimeters thick, +- 0.001 centimeters, before the blast. It was exposed at 3.5 meters from blast. After the blast it was 29.985 centimeters thick, experiencing only 0.015 centimeters of ablation." This is the sort of evidence you would have to come up with to make your claim, and you have never done so. Instead you have posted screenful after screenful of pastes, hoping that something in them makes the point that you are unable to. Your subscription to Analogue is not submissable evidence. I repeat: I have never used that example for anything more than interesting and slightly humorous, anecdotal evidence that such a "plate" could survive a close encounter with a nuclear blast. I constantly refer you to my earlier posts and the article which I linked. Since you have repeatedly directed attention at the above "manhole cover" incident, I can only assume that you are unable to find the link which contains the experiments that I have been supporting over this entire thread. So, I dug it up for you yet another time. (This makes the 5'th or 6'th time maybe?) Project Orion: It's Life, Death and Possible Rebirth (This is the article, on a different site than I originally referrenced I believe, that you seem to have refused to acknowledge as the link and information I keep pointing you to.) In regards to the ablation tests: "... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

zenith · Oct 16, 2004

what about if speculations that the core of jupiter is a giant diamond is correct... wouldnt that diamond be large enough, even if for only one travel?

nexium · Oct 16, 2004

For me Orian is one of a long list of proposals that likely won't work; but I try to avoid being negative, and try to remember to say I am speculating when my ideas are poorly supported which is most of the time. Suppose we build 100 sequential rotating tethers, each of which gets our spacecraft a bit faster and farther from the sun. We might reach 0.01c by the time we are 0.01 light years from the Sun. Please comment, refute, embellish, or change the subject. Neil

Maddad · Oct 18, 2004

packet "I have never used that example for anything more than interesting and slightly humorous, anecdotal evidence that such a "plate" could survive a close encounter with a nuclear blast. Your problem is that this is evidence that the material did not survive a close encounter with a nuclear blast. The concrete plug behind the manhole cover suffered 100% ablatement in 0.031 or less. This is the only evidence you have; that materials do not survive the encounter. What do you plan to do, throw some anti-ablatement spray paint on the concrete so that the two tons takes 0.032 seconds to vaporize? (Or, I'm sorry. You plan to spray grease, not paint. That'll give you at least 0.033 seconds. Not.) "experiments conducted at the Eniwetok proving grounds, where graphite-covered steel spheres were suspended thirty feet from the center of an atomic explosion. The spheres were later found intact; a thin layer of graphite had been ablated from their surfaces (13). This is probably where the Orion nutcases led you astray. 30 feet from the center appears to mean that the spheres were 30 feet from the blast. It does not have to mean that. It can mean that they were 30 feet above the opening of the shaft, and that the bomb was 500 feet down that shaft, its usual depth. That is the more likely meaning. We need more information before we can say for sure what those ambigious words really mean. Additionally, how above were the spheres? What angle did they deviate from being in line of sight of the bomb? If the angle was off by one degree would they still have called it above the center? I certainly would have. Howsomever, the spheres would have been shielded from the direct heat of the blast with a one degree variance. If they were 20 degrees off, then they still would have been described as being 30 above the center, and yet they wou

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 18, 2004

Maddad, you continue to prattle on and refuse to let the subject die despite the fact that it is obvious we have "rreconcilable differences" in the matter. maddad - Your problem is that this is evidence that the material did not survive a close encounter with a nuclear blast. I never presented that as evidence of anything concerning ablation. Naturally, it "ablated." Congratulations on your unmistakable grasp of the obvious. a_lost_packet_-"experiments conducted at the Eniwetok proving grounds, where graphite-covered steel spheres were suspended thirty feet from the center of an atomic explosion. The spheres were later found intact; a thin layer of graphite had been ablated from their surfaces (13)." maddad -This is probably where the Orion nutcases led you astray. 30 feet from the center appears to mean that the spheres were 30 feet from the blast. It does not have to mean that. It can mean that they were 30 feet above the opening of the shaft, and that the bomb was 500 feet down that shaft, its usual depth. That is the more likely meaning. We need more information before we can say for sure what those ambigious words really mean. .. Additionally, how above were the spheres? What angle did they deviate from being in line of sight of the bomb? If the angle was off by one degree would they still have called it above the center? I certainly would have. Howsomever, the spheres would have been shielded from the direct heat of the blast with a one degree variance. If they were 20 degrees off, then they still would have been described as being 30 above the center, and yet they would have received but a tiny fraction of the force of the explosion. Ambiguous? Read my quote and then read yours. Who is being ambiguous? It says "..thirty feet from the center of an atomic explosion.." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 19, 2004

packet 'I never presented that as evidence of anything concerning ablation. Naturally, it "ablated." Good. If it ablated, then the pusher plate disappears in the first bomb blast. The second one ablates the rest of the Orion Spaceship along with the astronauts. "the experiment did prove that physical ablation from a nuclear blast suffered by a possible "Orion pusher plate" was not as much of a concern as previously thought. Nothing of the such was proved because it was not a controlled experiment. You do understand the difference between an observation and a controlled experiment, don't you? "These weren't controlled experiments with controls. I'm glad you're getting it. "We don't know the blast yield. You're beginning to figure it out. "OK. Explain to me the temperature differences involved when testing explosive driven helium plasma and a nuclear blast. Mass of the nuclear reactants is on the order of one kilogram, and its temperature is as high as 100,000,000 Kelvin. What is the mass of your helium plasma, and what is its temperature? Also what are your exposure times to these temperatures? "explain how the temperatures involved are different. Maddad, what is the difference between chemical and nuclear temperature that you refer to? The temperatures are different because they are three to four orders of magnitude higher. Nuclear temperatures rise to as much as 100,000,000 Kelvin, while your chemicals run up to maybe 10,000 Kelvin. Because liquid helium, just above absolute zero at 6 Kelvin, does not melt steel, you cannot safely conclude that the temperatures found at the surface of the Sun, 6,000 Kelvin, are unable to melt steel. Yet this is exact

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 19, 2004

Maddad, why are you being so childish as to intentionally falsify quotes and pretend that they are statements that I made? You're just being obnoxious. In response to your entire post portion concerning the "temperature differences" I am going to state something that you have made quite apparent: You have no idea what you are talking about do you? liquid helium Do you understand what plasma is? Do you have a clue as to what the fourth state of matter is? Do you realize that you did not answer the question? In fact, you just avoided trying to answer it. Instead you talked about temperature differences that have nothing to do with the experiment that took place. You have picked yet another day to shout your lack of understanding across the rooftops of the world. Enjoy arguring with yourself. You falsify my statements, make claims misrepresenting my position, post evasively and do not demonstrate any capacity to understand the subject matter you are discussing. The only conclusion that is possible to draw is that you have taken some perveted joy in purposefully being obnoxious. Fine. You are welcome to continue demonstrating your obnoxious ignorance on your own time. Enjoy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 22, 2004

packet Yes, I do know a plasma is a gas where the electrons are no longer associated with individual nuclei. I also had high school physics. Glad to see you're catching up. Three to four orders of magnitude in temperature difference kinda went over your head, didn't it? Ok. We're halfway there if you understand that plasma is much hotter than liquid helium. That was one of the points I was trying to get across to you. You finally got it. That plasma you yap about is three to four orders of magnitude hotter than the liquid helium. As a consequence plasma behaves very differently than liquid helium. One of the things the liquid helium cannot do is melt steel like the plasma can. Three to four orders of magnitude in the temperature make the difference. Now ratchet up the temperature another three to four orders of magnitude. If such a radical temperature change made a substantial difference in what liquid helium could do, wouldn't you think that a similar radical change would again make another difference in what it does? Good, I'm glad you agree with me. When you take the plasma, already 10,000 Kelvin, and heat it up 1,000 times hotter, or even 10,000 times hotter, then that superheated plasma is going to do things that the wimpy cold 10,000 Kelvin plasma never dreamed of doing. One of the things that the wimpy cold plasma couldn't do was ablate the pusher plate. Not a problem for the superheated plasma. 0.031 seconds (at most) and two tons (at least) of pusher plate is history. That's why the Orion boys are dummies. They just cannot claim to have experimental evidence of how the pusher plate reacts to ablatement when they're using temperatures 1,000 to 10,000 times too cold.

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 22, 2004

maddad - ..Three to four orders of magnitude in temperature difference kinda went over your head, didn't it? .. You have yet to offer anything which is capable of going over my head in regards to your responses. ..Glad to see you're catching up. Commenting on your mistakes and pointing them out to you can not be defined as me "catching up." Let me take a moment to point out some information regarding nuclear bombs and explosions: 1) Intense thermal energy on the orders of "millions of degrees F" are only present at the immediate center of the blast. Thermal energy immediately related to the explosion dissipates rapidly from 10's of thousands to thoursands of degrees F. Additional thermal energies can be generated by the interaction of radiation with suceptible materials. 2) The magnitude of the "bombs" suggested for use with NPP in the Orion Project are on the order of .2 kilotons. For comparison, Nagasaki and Hiroshama bombs were on the order of 21kt and 15kt respectively. It is extremely important to note that the yield size of the bomb determines the area of effect and, to a lesser degree, the energy distribution of the device in the immediate vicinity of the bomb itself (thermal, radiation and blast wave.) 3) The amount of thermal energy released in a airburst blast, which is directly related to the total energy produced, is roughly 35%. The overwhelming "damage" many see pictures of is due more to the pressures of the blast wave which accounts for about half of the energy available . However, thermally susceptible materials will combust and contribute to "firestorm" effects. This is "secondary" damage from the blast. 4) The construction of the "bomb" is crucial in maximizing the potential for thermal, radiation and desired blast pressures. In other words, the actual components and materials use <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 23, 2004

packet "Thermal energy immediately related to the explosion dissipates rapidly from 10's of thousands to thoursands of degrees Uh, yeah, when the temperatures have fallen to a blizzardly 10's of thousands of degrees then indeed they will shortly fall to only thousands. Howsomever, what still goes right over the top of your head is that these temperatures are in the 10's of millions of degrees. In high school you did learn the difference between thousands and millions, didn't you? "The magnitude of the "bombs" suggested for use with NPP in the Orion Project are on the order of .2 kilotons. . . The temperature of the center of the blast is independent of the yield. It is extremely important to note that a smaller yield size of the bomb means you have to put the pusher plate closer to the blast, which means that it still receives nuclear thermal densities. "The amount of thermal energy released in a airburst blast . . . is roughly 35% Good. I'm glad that you've figured out why Orion would have to park the bombs next to the pusher plate so they don't have that problem. I'm not going to bother looking up you own link information once again, but your 20 kiloton device is close to the size they were talking about when they said the bomb would have to be only 3.5 meters, ten feet, from the pusher plate. Drop your yield size by 100 times to the 0.2 kiloton yield that you are now talking about (you're flip flopping as much as Kerry does in politics) and the distance from the pusher plate to the nuclear bomb reduces to 35 centimeters. If you put a device producing 100 million degrees (not 100 thousand; remember that there's a difference) only one foot from your pressure plate then you don't have room for your expansive cooling before it vaporizes the pusher plate and the astronauts beh

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 24, 2004

LOL You just can't admit you're wrong can you? No matter if God himself came down and blessed you with insight, you wouldn't admit a mistake to a mere mortal would you? Instead, you'd rather play games. 1) The experiments conducted during Orion were valid exploratory efforts at determining the feasibility of an Orion NPP system. 2) Thermal damage from the proposed .2 kt Propulsion Bombs was determined by the Orion team to not be an issue. 3) Ablation damage was determined by the Orion team to not be an issue. 4) The only reason that the Orion NPP has never been considered as a viable Earth to Orbit craft is because of the large amounts of radiation released during an ongoing Orion project and Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreements. 5) a_lost_packet_ has never made any statements supporting or proposing that the Orion NPP ever be pursued as an Earth to Orbit possibility. (As evident by the lack of same in any of a_lost_packet's posts on the issue.) 6) a_lost_packet_ has successfully defended the experimental evidence gleaned from the Orion Project as valid examples of investigative science. (Repeatedly demonstrated) 7) Maddad can't win the argument without lying, distorting and completely fabricating statements made by a_lost_packet and direct quotes from expert sources. (Evidence presented for this statement is clearly within maddad's posts and a_lost_packet's replies.) It's just too humbling for you to admit that you're wrong isn't it? Children have this problem, not grown adults. maddad - Howsomever, what still goes right over the top of your head is that these temperatures are in the 10's of millions of degrees. Only within meters of the initial detonation and only for milliseconds. Read the documents that I linked and quoted for you on the anatomy of a nuclear blast. We're talking about temperatures inside and immediately around the cas <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 25, 2004

packet "You just can't admit you're wrong can you? Don't need to when I'm right. "The experiments conducted during Orion were valid exploratory efforts at determining the feasibility of an Orion NPP system. They're not valid because they're not testing nuclear temperatures, only chemical temperatures. "Thermal damage from the proposed .2 kt Propulsion Bombs was determined by the Orion team to not be an issue. That is a conclusion that you should only draw based on experimental evidence if you have it. The only experimental evidence you have is that two tons of your issue ablated in 0.031 seconds. "The only reason that the Orion NPP has never been considered as a viable Earth to Orbit craft is because of the large amounts of radiation released during an ongoing Orion project and Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreements. Horse feathers! Now you're the one unable to admit that you're wrong. You were the one who gave us links to hundreds of nuclear tests. "a_lost_packet_ has successfully defended the experimental evidence gleaned from the Orion Project as valid examples of investigative science. How do you defend something that does not exist??? You don't have any experimental evidence! Maddad "Howsomever, what still goes right over the top of your head is that these temperatures are in the 10's of millions of degrees. " packet "Only within meters of the initial detonation what still goes right over the top of your head is that your links require a 20 kt device be no more than 3.5 meters of the pusher plate. Paring that down to the 0.2 kt device you now propose would require the bomb be no more than 3

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 25, 2004

a_lost_packet_-"The experiments conducted during Orion were valid exploratory efforts at determining the feasibility of an Orion NPP system." maddad -They're not valid because they're not testing nuclear temperatures, only chemical temperatures. You have yet to explain why the two same termperatures are different just because one was generated by plasma and the other.. your "nuclear" explanation. Why is that maddad? Could it be because such a claim of "difference" is flawed? There is no difference. Temperature=temperature. No difference. a_lost_packet_- "Thermal damage from the proposed .2 kt Propulsion Bombs was determined by the Orion team to not be an issue." maddad-That is a conclusion that you should only draw based on experimental evidence if you have it. The only experimental evidence you have is that two tons of your issue ablated in 0.031 seconds. Your statement is false and intentionally misleading. You are referring to something that has nothing to do with Orion or any portion of valid investigation. The concrete you speak of is a red-herring. Why don't you address the evidence presented in the information I linked to you which directly supports the investigator's (and everyone else who has merit) conclusions regarding Orion? You can't because you can not refute the experimental evidence presented nor can you justify your rebuttals of the methods used in the face of overwhelming confirmation. a_lost_packet_-"The only reason that the Orion NPP has never been considered as a viable Earth to Orbit craft is because of the large amounts of radiation released during an ongoing Orion project and Nuclear Test-ban agreements." maddad - Horse feathers! Now you're the one unable to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

jcdenton · Oct 26, 2004

Round and round the world goes, when she stops, nobody knows... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Both of you might want to try out these links (1, 2) in order to get the facts and settle the argument. I hope you do check them out, otherwise I see no end to this. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Maddad · Oct 26, 2004

packet "You have yet to explain why the two same termperatures are different just because one was generated by plasma and the other.. your "nuclear" explanation. Your plasma is only a few thousand degrees, while temperatures in a nuclear explosion reach 100 million. "You are referring to something that has nothing to do with Orion or any portion of valid investigation. The concrete you speak of is a red-herring. It has everthing to do with Orion. The theoretical problem with Orion is that no physical material should be able to withstand the temperatures involved. The only experimental evidence that you have offered is of the concrete. Just as expected, it could not withstand the temperatures. All two tons of it ablated in not more that 0.031 seconds. More might have ablated, but we don't know because this is all the data we have. It could have ablated in less than 0.031 seconds, but we don't know because this is all the data we have. The data we do have though matches theoretical expectations. It blew your argument to hell and gone at 56,000 killmeters per hour. You still have the problem that if this was a possible propulsion system, then someone would have done it by now. You cite test ban treaties, but they were signed well after some dufus of yours proposed Orion. Furthermore, if a treaty was all that stood in the way of civilization reaching the stars, it would have been re-negotiated long ago. The only logical reason it wasn't, wasn't even debated, is that only your tin-hat society is pushing it. "0.2 kt device was initially designed to be placed 200 ft behind the vehicle. It's in the second paragraph of the very first link I posted on this thread. Then it cannot do what you propose it to do, push the space ship, because your own links say that even the 20 kt device must be no mor

A diamond hull will not be enough!

a_lost_packet_

Guest

nexium

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Maddad

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

jcdenton

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

zenith

Guest

nexium

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

jcdenton

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page