What about Life Support

i am liking cap's idea for propulsion. how about everyone else? i like the nacelle engines, but i also like the deflector engine, because it would be more efficient.

 

life support is easy. just use what is on the ISS and our hydroponics

i am liking cap's idea for propulsion. how about everyone else? i like the nacelle engines' date=' but i also like the deflector engine, because it would be more efficient.

 

life support is easy. just use what is on the ISS and our hydroponics[/quote']

 

After reading upp on Fission engines i would say, let's have a go on them.. Mostely due too the fact that we know a lot about it and therfore can control and use them quite well! Altough their hazards.. But im also open for a ship with more than one propulsion system..

 

What schrödingers cat probably ment was that Life Support shurely is very important on a ship.. but without an engine to run it and the ship forward, then what's the point of the ship from the start?!

the one where the collector is where a deflector would be is more efficient, but i like having multiple engines. maybe it should use both kinds.

Just to burst your bubble a bit, but this has already been done. According to my rather nice book entitled "The Road to the Stars":

 

"Since February 1973, the Project Daedalus Study Group of the British Interplanetary Society has devoted rather more than 10,000 man-hours to producing a detailed specification of a possible inter-stellar mission utilizing the nuclear pulse rocket. In what is probably the most detailed investigation of its kind, the group has examined all aspects of the mission, from the selection of the target, the specification of the vehicle and its payload, to the question of navigation and communication with the probe throughout the mission."

 

Admittedly, this project was devloped in 1973, but they had some very very good ideas that are probably still being used today. Since you haven't really discussed it yet, a nuclear pulse rocket basically consists of flinging a large nuclear bomb behind you and exploding it. The force of the explosion hits an abrasive shield, and accordly with Newton's laws, the equal and opposite force propels the spacecraft forward.

 

So as you can see, there has been rather a lot of thought into this kind of mission.

Someone hasn't followed the links in the thread

Saw this last page and thought "cba reading all of this" so just posted my stuff. Nevermind

Daedalus is actually quite a good idea - if this ship was meant to be built in the next ten years it would probably use that propulsion system.

How many nuclear bombs can you stor on one ship?

that kind of propulsion was from the orion project, wasn't it?

Daedalus was Orions offspring. I left a link in a previous post that detailed the lineage.

 

 

How many nuclear bombs can you stor on one ship?

 

If they are the size of your fist, quite a few.

i that that that would be a bad idea because of limited number of bombs. that would need lead or something like it for the shielding. putting a lead shield into space would cost a lot of money

Aren't nuclear weapons banned in space?

i that that that would be a bad idea because of limited number of bombs. that would need lead or something like it for the shielding. putting a lead shield into space would cost a lot of money

If you have a nuclear reactor you need lead shielding too.

not as much

 

yes they are banned

So you'd have to get around the treaty and the shielding... I don't think it's a good idea.

using two nuclear thermal rockets, there would be more control, but what if you enter a place where there is too little hydrogen?maybe have suplus H in tanks?

Right. You turn off the engines for a bit (with so few atoms to cause drag, you wouldn't slow down at all) and collect hydrogen for a while and store it, then fire the engines back up.

and you could start with the tanks full.

Yea, I dont think that I like the idea of a nuclear pulse rocket, not only b/c it's illegal in space but also b/c of all the things that could go wrong. But we're over that now. Do u have a link for this project started in '73? I'd love to hear more about it.

read "Project Orion". it was written my the son of the nuclear physicist Dyson

Aren't nuclear weapons banned in space?

For signatories to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty*, yes. For everyone else, no.

 

Note that a Daedalus-style propulsion system would not be banned under the terms of the treaty because it is not a weapon (although you could reasonably expect international observers to attend testing and launches.)

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=1157

 

 

 

* The Outer Space Treaty is actuall incorrectly named: it should be called the Inner Space Treaty, as Outer Space refers to everything outside the Solar System.

hmm, well I still dont think I like the thought of neclear explosions hitting against the back of the ship propelling it. I think that we could find some other, more manueverable way of propelling the vessel. And something a little less, messy

I don't really see the problem with it. Compared to the EM output of the sun, a few nukes is rather trivial really. Just need to ensure that you don't exploding them near Earth, no problems. I personally have my doubts about the Bussard collectors, but that's probably just me being cynical.

well. ur not going to be only a few dozen meters from the sun.