5 ms·
Not using chemical rockets. Nuclear propulsion would be able to do it with the ~1000000x energy density advantage of nuclear fuel over chemical fuel.
by acidburnNSA 7y ago
Not using chemical rockets. Nuclear propulsion would be able to do it with the ~1000000x energy density advantage of nuclear fuel over chemical fuel.
- nine_k 7y agoThe problem is that the super-dense energy of a nuclear blast also evaporates solids and rains gamma rays on everything around. Imagine how hard space exploration would be if the only practical rocket were a Project Orion.
- Baeocystin 7y agoI remember seeing a simple demonstrator some years back of a laser pulsing against the backside of a spinning disc, the geometry of things causing the heat from the laser to provide thrust. I can't find the video I saw, but here's a general link on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion#Laser_energized_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion#Laser_energiz... This comes with many problems, but it does bypass the rocket equation, while not requiring Project Orion levels of trouble.
- rocqua 7y agoI mean you still need to carry propellant: the stuff that is ablated away. It's just that the exhaust velocity is much higher.
- king07828 7y agoAir from the atmosphere may be the propellant [1]. If sufficient velocity can be achieved before leaving the atmosphere, then no propellant is needed to be carried up on the way to orbit. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUasBcoj-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUasBcoj-Q
- jccooper 7y agoNuclear would be better, but it's not quite as good as it seems. Nuclear engines are rather heavier than chemical.