"Gabriel" External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion

[yree]

"Gabriel" External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion<br /><br />External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion<br />http://www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/EPPP.html<br />MINI-MAGORION: A PULSED NUCLEAR ROCKET<br />FOR CREWED SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION<br />Ralph Ewig*, Dana Andrews†<br />Andrews Space, 505 5th Ave South #300, Seattle WA 98104<br />P-10 <br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/news/Pub-MiniMagOrion(200307).pdf<br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/MMO(200311).html<br />NUCLEAR PULSE SPACE VEHICLE STUDY<br />Vol -I---SUMMSRY <br />Gerge C. Marshall Space Flight Ceter<br />Future Projects Offece <br />National Aeronautics and Space Administration <br />Huntaville, Albama <br />Contract NAS 8-11053 <br />http://66.49.163.218/data/orion_summary.pdf<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Nuke-em til they go!

 

[yree]

Nuke Your Way to the Stars<br /><br />by John G. Cramer<br /><br />Alternate View Column AV-56<br />Keywords: nuclear salt water rocket fission space drive high specific impulse<br />Published in the Mid-December-1992 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;<br />This column was written and submitted 6/5/92 and is copyrighted ©1992 by John G. Cramer.<br />All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced in any form without<br />prior explicit permission of the author.<br /><br />This page now has an access count of:<br /><br />This column describes the nuclear salt water rocket, a radical new concept for propulsion in space. It is the idea of Robert M. Zubrin of the Martin Marietta Corp., author of the fascinating recent Analog science-fact article "The Magnetic Sail", which the cover described as " a liberating new concept in space travel". The nuclear salt water rocket is another such liberating concept..<br /><br />The basic difficulty with space propulsion comes down to the problem of energy. There simply is not enough energy stored in NASA's best chemical fuels to generate much push (or more precisely, specific impulse, a quantity measured in seconds and given by ISP=vex/g , i.e., exhaust velocity divided by gravitational acceleration). The laws of physics dictate that if the specific impulse is low, the fuel consumed per second must be correspondingly very large to provide enough thrust (upward force) to boost a reasonable payload. The laws of economics dictate that a very large and reliable engine consuming a very large quantity of low-energy fuel to produce a large thrust must be very, very expensive. And finally, the laws of politics dictate that any project that is very, very expensive will be dominated by political decisions rather than scientific and engineering decisions. Within these boundary conditions the politics-before-engineering-before-science proclivities of NASA and the current dismal state of the U. S. Space Program are inevitable.<br /><br />Zubrin

 

[rogers_buck]

I think there might be a problem with Zubrin's scheme as described in the article. If the explosion occurs just outside of the reaction tube vessel, where does the thrust come from? Wouldn't you need to have an ablative disc to get thrust from that? Wouldn't the only thrust be from the expulsion of the salt water? It would be as if the exhaust plume of a chemical rocket self-anhilated a few inches outside the rocket nozzle. The radiation would do you bad, but the energy would do you no good unless you could harness it. The explosion would be near issotropic...<br /><br />Here is a variation on this theme that might solve the nozzle problem that comes to mind. Imagine a long pipe filled with the salt water with a coaxial boron rod. To light the fuse you pull the boron rod towards the payload. The salt water at the end of the thrust end of the pipe goes critical and a chain reaction occurs. As the boron rod is rocketed out of the pipe the reaction propogates down the pipe. The pipe would have to be wrapped in thick layers of kevlar to transmit the force of the explosion to the payload. The kevlar would be vaporized at the point of the recation but the energy transfer would be good.

 

[yree]

External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion" for Crew Exploration Vehicle ??

 

[trailrider]

I can tell you a good place to conduct static tests....in secret, so the "enviros" wouldn't know about it, and the waste products would be shielded from Earth by a fairly LARGE mass: The back side of the Moon! Same applies to "un-clear"-thermal rockets, etc. Another GOOD reason for establishing permanent BASES (plural) on the Moon, BEFORE heading for Mars with a manned mission.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />Trailrider

 

[scottb50]

Not that I don't appreciate exotic technologies that will get us to the Alpha Centauri solar system, or that we can build the technology that a large number of people would think to be extremely dangerous and would oppose, by hiding it on the back side of the Moon. Sort of like out-sourcing torture, it's really not a hard concept to get, as long as you forget about your ethics.<br /><br />Right now we can't get off our planet for anywhere near cheap enough to do any of it anyway. What we could do, starting tomorrow is put construction and transfer stations in LEO from where we could return to the Moon and continue on to Mars, as well as Near Earth Asteroids and rendevous with any number of comets that come close. Where we go from there will follow when we can do the basics. Just going that far will refine technology and understanding, leading to solutions unthinkable now.<br /><br />I would like to think in the near term, say 10-40 years, we have the technology to do that, and we have it at hand, what happens after that will happen more from learning what we do, not what we sit around and cook up.<br /><br />We could have started five, even ten years ago and already done a lot of it. Why haven't we?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Excellent post, scott, I agree completely. But this response is on the subject of newclerr energy and the moon.<br /><br />I have long advocated the moon as the staging area for space based nuclear power.<br /><br />Taking a realistic view at the politics: While it may be true that the public is ready to accept nuclear energy (I think attitudes have shifted a great deal and are still shifting in favor of nuclear energy), the idea of Earth-orbiting nuclear material will remain a very tough sell for a long time.<br /><br />Launching nuclear material is the hurdle that must be jumped. Take your fuel rods, package them for shipment and robotic installation into a reactor core, and launch them on a direct trajectory to Luna with your most reliable rocket. Just get permission for this one launch every 5 years or so.<br /><br />The fuel rods are installed into their reactor in lunar orbit or at surface facilities. Presto! Space nuclear power!<br /><br />Every base camp and settlement is gonna need one, and once we make that level of energy available, we can stay for the long haul by growing crops, etc.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Way before we have the capability of putting that type of equipment in LEO we could be going to the Moon and Mars and pretty much anywhere between there and maybe close to Mercury. Much beyond the closest extremes of the asteroid belt, beyond Mars, I doubt fission would provide much of an advantage. <br /><br />For reaching the Moon, if it is an absolute requirement because Bush said it should be, or reaching Mars, because we can do it today and it is something we need to do we don't need Nuclear. At some point it might be viable, but nw it is in the same realm as an elevator to Space, that we simply climb up and jump off, La, Dee, Dah. We can't do it, it was proposed nearly fifty years ago and still can't be done and it's been just around the corner for at least 10 years but hasn't gotten any closer.<br /><br />My point is I am nearly 54 years old and I'd like to see it done. It's just so frustrating to hear everyone say we have to have all this technology before we can even think about it and get started. <br /><br />I'm sure the Vikings would have loved having a Carnival Cruise across the Atlantic but they made it in long boats. At some point I would hope to buy a ticket and go to Mars, just to go, with all the comforts of course. The technology exists to do that now. <br /><br />Reactors would be great, the main problem being the mass needed to be put them into orbit. The alternative is solar power, which is available roughly half the time in orbit and all the time outside of orbit. <br /><br />We can easily develop the Moon and Mars using water, solar power and fuel cells. With any luck, in the next 20 or more years we may be able to use water on Mars or the Moon, but even having to bring it into LEO from Earth it is our best source of energy for the near future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yree]

http://66.49.163.218/data/orion_summary.pdf<br />On page 28 of this pdf document a possible lunar mission built Orion propulsion drive system. I propose that it be launched on a heavy lift shuttle derived vehicle. This would check out the concept on lunar mission where if something goes wrong we would actually have a chance to rescue the crew with an Orion propulsion system.

 

[cosmictraveler]

All of this talk about another way to propel a rocket or spacecraft BUT it really isn't any faster than the traditional chemical type system we have been using so why should we change and take chances with radioactive material thatr could fall back to Earth and contaminate it even more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

CosmicTraveler;<br /><br />If you actually read the article yree posted, you'll see that it IS considerably faster than "traditional chemical type systems we have been using". In some cases WAY WAY faster. <br />I agree that it is not risk-free.. but I suspect that there are quite a number of ways to avoid contamination of earth by nuclear engines.<br /><br />Chemical rockets just aren't going to get significantly more powerful or efficient, and we're a very long way from having "warp drive"... so Nuclear engines of SOME kind (either Nuclear Thermal or a nuclear reactor driving an ion or other plama type drive) is what we've got to work with if we are to advance. <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[yree]

If this is the case, then it is possible to develop small spacecraft that could carry human crews between Earth and Mars in just 1 to 3 months, as opposed to 6 to 12 months with chemical or nuclear thermal propulsion technology<br />http://www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/EPPP.html

 

[yree]

NuclearSpace.com's Project Orion Gallery:<br />What if Project Orion had gone ahead in the 1960's?<br />Conquest of the Solar System Using the Orion Nuclear Pulse Propulsion - 1960-2001.<br /><br />"We will explore the inner and outer solar system as it should have been years ago and achieved Mans great colonization of most of the systems worlds. Science fiction? - I wonder."<br />http://www.nuclearspace.com/gallery_project_orion.htm

 

[danielink]

I couldn't agree more with ya.<br />but i'm afraid that after the ISS it will be very quiet.<br />Unless we started going to the moon and mars and that it could be...about 50 years, let's say around 2055-2060. What do you think?

 

[yree]

http://www.solarflarestudios.com/forum/files/18_1112826768.avi

 

[holmec]

Nice concept.<br /><br />But what is acceptable acceleration for the crew?<br /><br />If it can be accelerated for the long term, we could do about 3G throughout a journey. Perhaps that is adequate for the solar system. We would need 30 or 60 Gs to get to Alpha Centari in a decent about of time (5years). <br /><br />Also how big does this wall that catches the detonation. maybe it needs to be a huge cone so more energy is captured by the ship.<br /><br />Also can a similar system be created using fusion?<br /><br />Then after we populate our solar system with ions, what happens to them and how can we use them? Ion catchers? Or processing plants? My concern is the management of our solar system material (including earth). If we scatter it where do we get some more?<br /><br />And on the lighter side, who want to be the guinie pig to use the first one. If the detonation is too big, you blow up to cosmic dust. If too small you might just irratiate yourself. lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"We would need 30 or 60 Gs to get to Alpha Centari in a decent about of time (5years). "</font><br /><br />No.<br /><br />Constant acceleration adds up a heckuva lot quicker than you realize. Alpha Centauri is ~41,100,000,000,000 km from Earth. Accelerating at 1G halfway, then flipping and decelerating at 1G the other half, the total trip time would be ~1500 days -- a bit over four years (discounting relativistic effects). At 30 G's, the trip would take just a bit over a year (about 370 days).