4 ms·

We may have to reconsider some aspects of non-proliferation for the sake of space exploration. Not just for nuclear batteries, but also for things like Project

We may have to reconsider some aspects of non-proliferation for the sake of space exploration. Not just for nuclear batteries, but also for things like Project Orion which tried nuclear propulsion.

mikeash 12y ago
Orion is a really cool concept and it's a lot of fun to think about, but realistically any space propulsion system that horribly contaminates the atmosphere and fries every satellite anywhere near Earth is not an option.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  You wouldn't use the nukes until you're safely out of earths atmosphere which is easily attainable by having two separate propulsion systems.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    You lose much of the advantage of Orion, since Orion is extremely heavy, and you're doing the hardest part of the work without it. You also have to wait until you're pretty far away from Earth, not just out of the atmosphere, before you start blowing up nukes unless you want to destroy all electronics in sight.
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      Not if it is assembled by nanobots on the moon.
- wongarsu 12y ago
  It's not really useful for the type of spacecraft we use today, but if you assemble the spacecraft in orbit and only use the nuclear propulsion once you are far enough away from satellites it looks great for gigantic payloads or very high speeds.
- wyager 12y ago
  >any space propulsion system that horribly contaminates the atmosphere Modern nukes are very clean. Even in the 70s, we had nukes that were up to 98% efficient. I can't find the numbers for newer bombs, but they are even cleaner.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    High efficiency just means you're not leaving lots of uranium and plutonium behind. You're still leaving lots of fission products, and lots of neutron-activated materials from the non-nuclear components of the bomb. There's a reason that testing nuclear devices in the atmosphere is frowned upon these days.

We may have to reconsider some aspects of non-proliferation for the sake of space exploration. Not just for nuclear batteries, but also for things like Project Orion which tried nuclear propulsion.

mikeash 12y ago

Orion is a really cool concept and it's a lot of fun to think about, but realistically any space propulsion system that horribly contaminates the atmosphere and fries every satellite anywhere near Earth is not an option.

Igglyboo 12y ago
You wouldn't use the nukes until you're safely out of earths atmosphere which is easily attainable by having two separate propulsion systems.
- mikeash 12y ago
  You lose much of the advantage of Orion, since Orion is extremely heavy, and you're doing the hardest part of the work without it. You also have to wait until you're pretty far away from Earth, not just out of the atmosphere, before you start blowing up nukes unless you want to destroy all electronics in sight.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Not if it is assembled by nanobots on the moon.
wongarsu 12y ago
It's not really useful for the type of spacecraft we use today, but if you assemble the spacecraft in orbit and only use the nuclear propulsion once you are far enough away from satellites it looks great for gigantic payloads or very high speeds.
wyager 12y ago
>any space propulsion system that horribly contaminates the atmosphere Modern nukes are very clean. Even in the 70s, we had nukes that were up to 98% efficient. I can't find the numbers for newer bombs, but they are even cleaner.
- mikeash 12y ago
  High efficiency just means you're not leaving lots of uranium and plutonium behind. You're still leaving lots of fission products, and lots of neutron-activated materials from the non-nuclear components of the bomb. There's a reason that testing nuclear devices in the atmosphere is frowned upon these days.