3 ms·

NERVA in the 1960s operated under a similar principal to the one just announced. Orion (what you're describing) was not the only proposal in the 1960s. As for

NERVA in the 1960s operated under a similar principal to the one just announced. Orion (what you're describing) was not the only proposal in the 1960s. As for nuclear propulsion being the only way forward, I doubt that, I suspect that chemical will be more cost efficient for a lot of the trips, especially for unmanned cargo trips.

NegativeLatency 4y ago
Probably easier to generate chemical fuel on the moon/mars too then to refine nuclear fuel, although if you could carry enough nuclear fuel in the first place maybe that would be moot.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  Nuclear rockets are a bit funny: they have a separate fuel (something that produces heat, like U-235, Thorium, etc) and propellant (something that gets heated and pushed out the back, like Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc) . I think the idea is to carry a lifetime supply of nuclear fuel. Nuclear rockets aren't necessarily super particular about what propellant they use in conjunction with that fuel, so you can probably easily either directly scoop or otherwise easily refine/distill usable propellants anywhere you can find gas or something that is liquefiable.
comprambler 4y ago
Good video on the NERVA project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  This was excellent
kneebonian 4y ago
So I've been working on a sci-fi book that involves interplanetary governance, and one of the things I've realized is that if one wanted to have a civilization that worked on an interplanetary scale nuclear is probably the only way to go for meaningful power production. Chemical means, based on carbon products that we've used up till now, would be very rare on remote planets, solar wouldn't work because planets could be various distances from a star they orbit, or could have different atmospheric, or magnetospheric conditions that would make that impractical, wind suffers a similar issue. The only power source that could be guaranteed to work at the large scale, both in terms of space and time, reliably, and is likely to be available is nuclear power. With your other options being the quantum vacuum energy or anti-matter, but both fall more into the fiction part of sci-fi right now than the science part. it was just a fun interesting little thought exercise. I'd love to hear if anyone has a criticism of the reading though.
- blisterpeanuts 4y ago
  Isaac Arthur on YouTube has some interesting commentary on antimatter, and other advanced proposed propulsion systems. It seems that for the moment, at least, antimatter is strictly in the realm of science fiction, until some very difficult problems are solved.
- gpm 4y ago
  Naively I'd expect that you would need fusion specifically. Uranium isn't plentiful unless you're on a rocky planet, and isn't very high energy density compared to hydrogen. Hydrogen is everywhere by comparison. The other reasonable option might be solar power near stars, and forwarding the power on to your ships/distant planets using some form of directed energy (lasers, lenses, etc).

NegativeLatency 4y ago

Probably easier to generate chemical fuel on the moon/mars too then to refine nuclear fuel, although if you could carry enough nuclear fuel in the first place maybe that would be moot.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
Nuclear rockets are a bit funny: they have a separate fuel (something that produces heat, like U-235, Thorium, etc) and propellant (something that gets heated and pushed out the back, like Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc) . I think the idea is to carry a lifetime supply of nuclear fuel. Nuclear rockets aren't necessarily super particular about what propellant they use in conjunction with that fuel, so you can probably easily either directly scoop or otherwise easily refine/distill usable propellants anywhere you can find gas or something that is liquefiable.

comprambler 4y ago

Good video on the NERVA project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY

NegativeLatency 4y ago
This was excellent

kneebonian 4y ago

So I've been working on a sci-fi book that involves interplanetary governance, and one of the things I've realized is that if one wanted to have a civilization that worked on an interplanetary scale nuclear is probably the only way to go for meaningful power production. Chemical means, based on carbon products that we've used up till now, would be very rare on remote planets, solar wouldn't work because planets could be various distances from a star they orbit, or could have different atmospheric, or magnetospheric conditions that would make that impractical, wind suffers a similar issue. The only power source that could be guaranteed to work at the large scale, both in terms of space and time, reliably, and is likely to be available is nuclear power. With your other options being the quantum vacuum energy or anti-matter, but both fall more into the fiction part of sci-fi right now than the science part. it was just a fun interesting little thought exercise. I'd love to hear if anyone has a criticism of the reading though.

blisterpeanuts 4y ago
Isaac Arthur on YouTube has some interesting commentary on antimatter, and other advanced proposed propulsion systems. It seems that for the moment, at least, antimatter is strictly in the realm of science fiction, until some very difficult problems are solved.
gpm 4y ago
Naively I'd expect that you would need fusion specifically. Uranium isn't plentiful unless you're on a rocky planet, and isn't very high energy density compared to hydrogen. Hydrogen is everywhere by comparison. The other reasonable option might be solar power near stars, and forwarding the power on to your ships/distant planets using some form of directed energy (lasers, lenses, etc).