Nuclear Detonation as a means of propellsion

[dryson]

<p>The idea of using a nucleat blast to propell a ship forward has been looked upon many times, the same result is always complete destruction of the ship or fear of radioactive contanimation of the area of use. Perhaps the problem can be solved by using only a minute amount of the forces involved to propell the ship forward.&nbsp;</p><p>What needs to be looked at is the following:</p><p>1.Detonation yield of a current age nuclear device.</p><p>2.What force of thrust would be attainable along with forward momentum achieved by enclosing the blast in a typical everyday JX-2 type engine. Forego the fact that the blast would destroy the engine housing, just imagine that the blast is containable.</p><p>then</p><p>3. Take this affect and then scale it down to a point that the reaction achieved is containable in the JX-2 engine. </p><p>4. Once the explosive force has been contained and manageable a way would then need to be found to feed the reactant's into the firing chamber.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.What force of thrust would be attainable along with forward momentum achieved by enclosing the blast in a typical everyday JX-2 type engine. Forego the fact that the blast would destroy the engine housing, just imagine that the blast is containable. <br />Posted by dryson</DIV><br /><br />The problem is that if you ignore the obvious problem with the idea then it is just and idea for a science fiction story and&nbsp;it is not science.</p><p>To put it in a somewhat absurd level to make a point.&nbsp; "People could fly around with out planes, forego the fact that we can't flap our arms fast enough".</p><p>However if I can forego facts, then&nbsp;I would much rather say "enclose a small sustainable fusion reaction in an engine the size of a JX- 2".&nbsp; This can't be done either but at least you are not spewing fission products all over!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dryson]

<p>So what your telling me is that a minature nuclear detonation would not work to propell a ship forward? The last time that I checked a nuclear reactor doesnt use the explosive to create energy, it boils water that turns into steam that then turns a turbine that enacts against a magnet that creates an electrical current.</p><p>It will work. The detonation of a thermonuclear device creates an energy release that travels at x feet per second, so the possibility of the blast creating a thrust potentional is there. If this blast is contained with an engine housing a thrust potential will have been achieved. The only setback is finding the ratioed detonation yield of the&nbsp;process that would not destroy the ship or engine housing while still propelling the ship forward. Once this ratio has been found, then a way to continually feed the process would need to be found to continue forward propullsion.</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The idea of using a nucleat blast to propell a ship forward has been looked upon many times, the same result is always complete destruction of the ship or fear of radioactive contanimation of the area of use. Perhaps the problem can be solved by using only a minute amount of the forces involved to propell the ship forward.&nbsp;What needs to be looked at is the following:1.Detonation yield of a current age nuclear device.2.What force of thrust would be attainable along with forward momentum achieved by enclosing the blast in a typical everyday JX-2 type engine. Forego the fact that the blast would destroy the engine housing, just imagine that the blast is containable.then3. Take this affect and then scale it down to a point that the reaction achieved is containable in the JX-2 engine. 4. Once the explosive force has been contained and manageable a way would then need to be found to feed the reactant's into the firing chamber.&nbsp; <br />Posted by dryson</DIV><br /><br />IMHO, this belongs in the Space Business and Technology forum, where there are aleardy a few threads discussing this concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what your telling me is that a minature nuclear detonation would not work to propell a ship forward?</DIV></p><p>No, it would propel the remaining pieces of the ship that were not vaporized&nbsp;forward quite nicely.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The last time that I checked a nuclear reactor doesnt use the explosive to create energy, it boils water that turns into steam that then turns a turbine that enacts against a magnet that creates an electrical current.</DIV></p><p>There is no explosion -&nbsp;when the reactor is critical it produces heat&nbsp;primarily from the KE of the fission products, this heat is transfered to a reactor coolant.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It will work. The detonation of a thermonuclear device creates an energy release that travels at x feet per second, so the possibility of the blast creating a thrust potentional is there. If this blast is contained with an engine housing a thrust potential will have been achieved. The only setback is finding the ratioed detonation yield of the&nbsp;process that would not destroy the ship or engine housing while still propelling the ship forward. Once this ratio has been found, then a way to continually feed the process would need to be found to continue forward propullsion. <br />Posted by dryson</DIV><br /><br />What you are describing will not work.&nbsp; There can not be an arbitrarily small nuclear explosion.&nbsp; There are requirements of critical mass and critical geometry.&nbsp; The smallest nuclear explosion possible would destroy any space vehicle of the type you are describing.&nbsp; This actual idea was researched (project orion) and it was noted that a&nbsp;huge impact plate was needed to prevent the explosion from destroying the ship.&nbsp; </p><p>The whole idea of littering space with highly radioactive debris is a bad idea anyway.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; The whole idea of littering space with highly radioactive debris is a bad idea anyway.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />if you did it in space it would not matter.</p><p>background radiation is high enough that it would have no measurable effect.</p><p>anything above LEO should be safe.</p><p>as for a nozzle capable of directing a nuclear explosion. it would be prohibitively heavy.</p><p>also to get a substantial propulsive effect you need to suround the nuclear explosion with a mass of plastic or similar to provide reaction mass.</p><p>otherwise you will heat up the nozzle but not acomlplish much else.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; This actual idea was researched (project orion) and it was noted that a&nbsp;huge impact plate was needed to prevent the explosion from destroying the ship.&nbsp; The whole idea of littering space with highly radioactive debris is a bad idea anyway.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Years ago&nbsp;I heard on public radio an interview with one of the scientists that worked on this project.&nbsp; He said that at the time atomic energy was very new and they thought that much cleaner and safer elements other that uranium and plutonium would&nbsp;be found.&nbsp; At the time they thought we would someday have nuclear powered cars, airplanes, flashlights, etc... What I would like to know is how could you contain that much nuclear material inside a rocket ship without it&nbsp;exploding?&nbsp; Wouldn't it take many tons of shielding? &nbsp;<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)</p>

 

[vogon13]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Freeman Dyson (!) et al, designed practical nuclear impulse driven vessels.&nbsp; Size of the nuclear charge is carefully matched to standoff distance and diameter of the pusher plate that absorbs the kinetic energy of the blast.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Nuclear explosions can be 'directed' with 'nozzels', the original Mike H-bomb utilized the 'Smoo' shape (IIRC) to focus the primary onto the fusion secondary stage.&nbsp; So to, the propulsion charges utilize radiation channels to deliberately direct a sizable % of the energies toward the pusher plate, and the radiation channel is filled with low Z materials to distribute the impulse over time, and to dilute the effective radiated temperature of the blast.&nbsp; Ablation of the pusher plate is well understood, and it is deliberately designed with the expected flux in mind.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Besides radiation from atmospheric effects during launch, the biggest problem with these nuclear impulse craft is their size.&nbsp; The smallest practical vehicle might weigh 4000 tons.&nbsp; Maximum size (~) is around 2 million tons, for an interstellar capable craft.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p> &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>