Atomic Aircraft

("Danny Deger" wrote)
But weight isn't an issue in the micro gravity of space ...

You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design, weight
is EVERYTHING.


For getting your payload (one time) up to space, after that weight is much
less of an issue. g


Montblack

"quietguy" wrote in message
oups.com...


Circa 1960 I built two different atomic-powered bomber models.

Shouldn't that read, "Circa 1960 I built two different models of
atomic-powered bombers." Otherwise I have to ask, do you glow in the dark
now?

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
Shouldn't that read, "Circa 1960 I built two different models of
atomic-powered bombers." Otherwise I have to ask, do you glow in the dark
now?


"Let's go up to the schoolyard and blow up models with firecrackers."

"Naw, we'll simply shut off the reactor core's main 'coolant valve' in my
B-36, then sit back and watch what happens."

Ok, but if I get radiation sickness, I'm telling mom!"

(...you could still do that kind of thing in the 60's, and early 70's.
Actually it was encouraged - "Don't blow those things off around here, the
baby's sleeping. Why don't you run on up to the schoolyard if you're going
to be making a racket!")


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
("Danny Deger" wrote)
You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design, weight
is EVERYTHING.

For getting your payload (one time) up to space, after that weight is much
less of an issue. g

But then there was the infamous Project Orion in the '50s, which was a
spaceship designed to be pushed along by multiple atomic blasts. It
was envisioned to hold 200 crew, weigh thousands of tons, and be able
to get to Mars and back in four weeks (!!!). I think they planned to
use two Saturn V's to launch it, in case people objected to using the
atomic blasts inside the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/bo...on_020709.html

Gotta love those wacky rocket scientists.

Kev

Larry Dighera wrote:
Let's see, all we need is a water tank, steam boiler, turbine, some
uranium 235 or plutonium 239, plenty of lead shielding, a condenser,
and the will to cope with the radiation hazard in the event of a
mishap.

The original concept may have been slightly different:

"Or: nuclear reactor... air comes rushing in the front... heated up by
nuclear reaction... out the back it goes... Boom! Through the air --
it's an airplane." (p. 181 of ISBN 0-393-31604-1 )

The patent on this concept was sold to the US government for one dollar
(in cookies) in the mid-1940s.

Matt Roberds

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:33:32 -0600, "Danny Deger"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
snip

But weight isn't an issue in the micro gravity of space ...



You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design, weight is
EVERYTHING.


Only during launch.

Recently, Kev posted:

Montblack wrote:
("Danny Deger" wrote)
You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design,
weight is EVERYTHING.

For getting your payload (one time) up to space, after that weight
is much less of an issue. g

But then there was the infamous Project Orion in the '50s, which was a
spaceship designed to be pushed along by multiple atomic blasts. It
was envisioned to hold 200 crew, weigh thousands of tons, and be able
to get to Mars and back in four weeks (!!!). I think they planned to
use two Saturn V's to launch it, in case people objected to using the
atomic blasts inside the atmosphere.

IIRC, Project Orion intended to launch from Earth with successive atomic
blasts, as well. Interesting what can be imagined when one is unencumbered
by reality.

Neil

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
Shouldn't that read, "Circa 1960 I built two different models of
atomic-powered bombers." Otherwise I have to ask, do you glow in the dark
now?


"Let's go up to the schoolyard and blow up models with firecrackers."

"Naw, we'll simply shut off the reactor core's main 'coolant valve' in my
B-36, then sit back and watch what happens."

Ok, but if I get radiation sickness, I'm telling mom!"

(...you could still do that kind of thing in the 60's, and early 70's.
Actually it was encouraged - "Don't blow those things off around here, the
baby's sleeping. Why don't you run on up to the schoolyard if you're going
to be making a racket!")


Ah, yes. The good old days before bicycle helmets and the when children were
told to be home by the time the street lights come on. And yes too we were
given medium order explosives and told to go have fun.

My wife and I were talking just this morning how as children my friends and
I would have tortured any kid who was wearing a bike helmet.

Montblack wrote:
("Danny Deger" wrote)
But weight isn't an issue in the micro gravity of space ...
You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design, weight
is EVERYTHING.


For getting your payload (one time) up to space, after that weight is much
less of an issue. g


Montblack


You're still wrong. There's no free lunch. Even things in
orbit will eventually fall back to earth unless you keep kicking
them back. The ISS uses thrusters for both keeping the orbit
from degrading and (in coordination with gyroscopes) to hold
the proper orientation. Objects in space still have MASS.
The amount of thruster fuel consumed depends on the mass.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Danny Deger" wrote)
But weight isn't an issue in the micro gravity of space ...
You can not be any more wrong about this. In space craft design, weight
is EVERYTHING.


For getting your payload (one time) up to space, after that weight is
much less of an issue. g


Montblack
You're still wrong. There's no free lunch. Even things in
orbit will eventually fall back to earth unless you keep kicking
them back. The ISS uses thrusters for both keeping the orbit
from degrading and (in coordination with gyroscopes) to hold
the proper orientation. Objects in space still have MASS.
The amount of thruster fuel consumed depends on the mass.

So the question is would a nuclear powered engine, once in space, provide
enough energy to be more efficient than a more conventional power source. I
think the answer might be yes for high earth orbit and as the craft moved
farther away from the earth gravity well it would be even more efficient.