Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   NASA Mars says new warp drive is ultra-safe nuclear technology. We have our doubts   (edition.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Rocket, Space exploration, Rocket technology, USNC-Tech, nuclear reactor, start of the space age, Human spaceflight, thermal energy  
•       •       •

577 clicks; posted to STEM » on 04 Feb 2021 at 9:12 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-02-04 8:33:36 AM  
"Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies"

i'm still laughing
 
2021-02-04 9:16:03 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
...approves.
 
2021-02-04 9:18:11 AM  
Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.
 
2021-02-04 9:21:29 AM  

Marcos P: Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.


Pretty much how the original Orion worked.  Chuck small nukes out the ass end of the ship and ride the impulse of the blast.
 
2021-02-04 9:21:48 AM  
So Fusion reactors are up and working now?
 
2021-02-04 9:30:50 AM  

Marcos P: Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.


You're thinking about Orion that used a nuclear pulse engine. Basically that plan was to use a series of nuclear detonations to accelerate a spacecraft. The technology described in the article is completely different.
 
2021-02-04 9:32:16 AM  
So, another 50+ years of dithering and hand-wringing from NASA, while SpaceX will have people on Mars in 5-10 years.
 
2021-02-04 9:41:55 AM  

wingnut396: Marcos P: Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.

Pretty much how the original Orion worked.  Chuck small nukes out the ass end of the ship and ride the impulse of the blast.


Yes, and it's banned by the 1963 Nuclear Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Nuclear thermal rockets, which are different from nuclear pulse propulsion (like Orion), have been tested fairly extensively back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and found to be practical and relatively safe even with the technology of the time.

But interest waned because after Apollo we weren't going to go to Mars, we were concentrating on the Space Shuttle program.   So NERVA got cut.

Which is *REALLY* unfortunate, because we could have a very well developed and safe nuclear thermal system *NOW* which could make manned missions to Mars possible, and manned missions to the Moon a dawdle.

Speed is important.   The faster you can go, the less time it takes to get to your destination, and the less time spent in space the better.  You can effectively shield out a lot of nastiness when you get to a planet, moon, or asteroid by going underground.  Plus, if your mission is short enough in duration, you can use current technologies to support it.  If your mission is only going to last 6 months to a year in duration, you don't need food that lasts 3 to 5 years, and obviously you need less of it.  You need less water, oxygen, and other expendables.   Your equipment doesn't have to last 5 years, if it only needs to last half that or less.

A lot of problems go away or are minimized by getting there fast and getting home fast.

So nuclear thermal rockets are a really good thing, because you get an Isp about double what you can get from a conventional chemical rocket for a solid core NTR (the only kind actually tested so far).  More advanced designs have Isp's that are 4 to 10 times higher than the most efficient liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen conventional rockets can acheive.
 
2021-02-04 9:43:43 AM  

Marcos P: Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.


Sagan was probably stoned when he made it, too.

Still far, far better than that Neil deGrasse Tyson abortion of a Cosmos.
 
2021-02-04 9:50:55 AM  

dittybopper: Still far, far better than that Neil deGrasse Tyson abortion of a Cosmos.


It was unwatchable. And it's not that I don't like Neil. It's just that they went in a completely different direction that was slow, not very entertaining or informative.
 
2021-02-04 10:04:48 AM  

Destructor: dittybopper: Still far, far better than that Neil deGrasse Tyson abortion of a Cosmos.

It was unwatchable. And it's not that I don't like Neil. It's just that they went in a completely different direction that was slow, not very entertaining or informative.


My big problem with it is that it pretty much dropped the actual, you know, *SCIENCE*.

If you watch the original Cosmos episode dealing with Einstein and relativity, there are "demonstrations" using concrete examples with the speed of light set at 30 km/hr (or something like that).   So you can intuitively grasp the examples Sagan provides.   It is intuitive enough that even a non-geek can understand the basic concepts.

The Tyson one just pretty much skipped all of that.  Much less science or explanation of the science.

Plus, the Sagan version used actual actors in period clothing in the actual locations, speaking the actual languages used, to illustrate the historical portions of the story.   The Tyson used, for the most part, cheap-ass animation.
 
2021-02-04 10:08:10 AM  

whyRpeoplesostupid: "Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies"


Sold!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-04 10:13:41 AM  
Why I'm Glad The Space Shuttle Blew Up
Youtube 4sH8P7o8E2U
 
2021-02-04 10:51:51 AM  
Actually, NASA has had a pretty good safety record with nuclear technology.

It's the chemical stuff that has tended to get all explode-y on them.
 
2021-02-04 12:25:48 PM  
I'm thinking ion drives are going to be the game changer once we can scale them up.  Might have to use nuclear power to generate the electricity for them, especially for the outer solar system, but it's very efficient and greatly reduces propellant mass.  Just have to scale it up enough to get meaningful thrust for larger vehicles.
 
2021-02-04 2:37:44 PM  

dittybopper: Marcos P: Wasn't there some plan to make a nuclear power ramjet or something but it got shelved because people said no to nuclear blasts in space or something?
I think I saw it on Cosmos, but since I was watching Cosmos, I was probably stoned.

Sagan was probably stoned when he made it, too.

Still far, far better than that Neil deGrasse Tyson abortion of a Cosmos.


I couldn't get past the first episode
 
2021-02-04 4:44:05 PM  

Merltech: So Fusion reactors are up and working now?


Sure! Collecting and storing the energy is an entirely different issue, though.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Less snarky, this was cool: https://www.iter.org/sci/BeyondITER
 
2021-02-04 9:31:11 PM  
So an Epstein Drive?
 
2021-02-04 11:10:02 PM  

p89tech: So an Epstein Drive?


最大油门
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.