The Americans have really not been in a roll recently. Space Launch System? Descriptive, but uninspired. Orion? It's not even propelled by nuclear bombs. Starship? Bro, that's an intrastellar spacecraft.
Of course their best use is lifting things out of a gravity well but blowing up a hundred nukes on Earth produces fallout :ooooooooooooooh: What we really need are pure fusion mini hydrogen bombs but who's gonna invent that? Militaries want to be able to poison millions, defeating the purpose of clean nukes!
I think I'll make some posts on absolutely ridiculous space concepts
There's a clean thermal nuclear fission drive concept called the "nuclear lightbulb". All fission products are contained in the reactor, except for radiation which is allowed to escape through a special "window" where it heats a propellant like ammonia that then escapes from a conventional nozzle for thrust. The fictional Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey used this. Some designs have other windows which are used to allow photovoltaic panels to provide electricity from the reactor radiation.
It's less efficient than just blasting fission products NERVA style out the back, but far safer. It's too low thrust to be used to get off a planetary surface but would be great for deep space usage.
Ah yeah I have heard of the nuclear lightbulb - the design is very pleasing to the eye. Nuclear thermal rockets are cool but definitely a couple tiers below pulse propulsion. Speaking of blasting fission products out the back, you gotta look up nuclear salt water rockets and fission fragment rockets. Anyway, do you know if NASA or other scientists ever addressed the possibility of nuclear thermal rockets blowing up? Everything I've read kinda glossed over the potential environmental issues...
NERVA doesn't blast fission products out the back, it's a closed-cycle nuclear fission rocket. All the fission products are contained. NASA has tested it a bunch of times on the ground and it works just fine.
You are correct that open-cycle (blasting radiation everywhere) designs are often more efficient.
Divine dragon, way cooler than falcon heavy lifter
The Long March rocket is cool too.
Such a poetic name for a rocket. Like, I wish Mao could have lived to see the Long March commemorated by it.
*Meanwhile in America* "The Thunder-Cougar-Falcon-Eagle-Burger has landed. 😎👍👍"
America's habit of naming it's attack helicopters after Indigenous nations it exterminated is uniquely ghoulish and sadistic.
The Americans have really not been in a roll recently. Space Launch System? Descriptive, but uninspired. Orion? It's not even propelled by nuclear bombs. Starship? Bro, that's an intrastellar spacecraft.
Man, Orion drives are so fucking cool. Just the purest, most cocaine fueled 3am brainstorm idea.
"What if we propelled a giant lead plate through the system by pooping out a string of exploding nuclear bombs??!?!?"
Fuck, I like that we're talking about sci fi and space a bit today. Things have been so bleak lately and space is so damn cool.
Of course their best use is lifting things out of a gravity well but blowing up a hundred nukes on Earth produces fallout :ooooooooooooooh: What we really need are pure fusion mini hydrogen bombs but who's gonna invent that? Militaries want to be able to poison millions, defeating the purpose of clean nukes!
I think I'll make some posts on absolutely ridiculous space concepts
There's a clean thermal nuclear fission drive concept called the "nuclear lightbulb". All fission products are contained in the reactor, except for radiation which is allowed to escape through a special "window" where it heats a propellant like ammonia that then escapes from a conventional nozzle for thrust. The fictional Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey used this. Some designs have other windows which are used to allow photovoltaic panels to provide electricity from the reactor radiation.
It's less efficient than just blasting fission products NERVA style out the back, but far safer. It's too low thrust to be used to get off a planetary surface but would be great for deep space usage.
Ah yeah I have heard of the nuclear lightbulb - the design is very pleasing to the eye. Nuclear thermal rockets are cool but definitely a couple tiers below pulse propulsion. Speaking of blasting fission products out the back, you gotta look up nuclear salt water rockets and fission fragment rockets. Anyway, do you know if NASA or other scientists ever addressed the possibility of nuclear thermal rockets blowing up? Everything I've read kinda glossed over the potential environmental issues...
NERVA doesn't blast fission products out the back, it's a closed-cycle nuclear fission rocket. All the fission products are contained. NASA has tested it a bunch of times on the ground and it works just fine.
You are correct that open-cycle (blasting radiation everywhere) designs are often more efficient.
The launching of Dongfanghong always fills me with hope. Imagine all the communists who made it through the Long March getting to see this.
:bloomer: :ranmao:
Very cool video