Atomic Aircraft

"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.

Yeah, I remember watching "The Jettsons" every Saturday morning and looking
forward to having my own space ship! LOL!
"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Larry Dighera wrote:
ENTHUSIASM for the nuclear-powered bomber project in the United States
blows alternately hot and cold. Mr. R. E. Gross, chairman of Lockheed
Aircraft, one of the two companies with contracts to develop the
airframes (the other being Convair) has said recently that if the
American government were to give the "go ahead signal", Lockheed could
have an aircraft ready to make its first flight in the mid-1960s.

This article was originally published in New Scientist on 11 July 1957

Yep, when I was a kid, I remember building a (Revell?) model of a
prototype atomic bomber. We were so convinced back then that we'd
have atomic-powered everything... both automobiles and rocket ships to
the moon.

Thanks for the memories!
Kev

"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.

Danny Deger

("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

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

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

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Orion was nothing

http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

Radioactive fallout from the exhaust was a _feature_ of this thing - not a
problem!

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

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.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


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.


Huh? What do you need the engine for? If it's for propulsion then
the mass is going to be important, the force needed to be applied is
proportional of the mass. If you are just using it for other power
purposes, then it doesn't necessarily make a difference.