- #1
cjackson
- 39
- 0
Would fusion make for practical applications in high speed interplanetary propulsion?
Or would beamed propulsion be better?
Or would beamed propulsion be better?
cjackson said:Would fusion make for practical applications in high speed interplanetary propulsion?
Or would beamed propulsion be better?
I bolded the point I think most pertinent. Whilst we can speculate on nuclear fusion propulsion and beamed propulsion without actually having either of them we really can't say because we don't know the ins and outs of how they would work.QuantumPion said:That really depends on what your definition of practical is. Since neither technology exists today, and regardless of what technology you use interplanetary space travel would still take hundreds of years at the very minimum, you'll have to narrow the parameters of your question.
In its favor, fusion as a propulsion source is in a sense an easier problem than is fusion as a source for electrical power. The first is creating oomph, the latter, zzzzt. To make electrical power, you have to constrain the natural tendency to create oomph and add a whole lot of extra infrastructure to create zzzzt. That's not to say that there aren't boatloads of unsolved problems with using fusion for spacecraft propulsion.turbo said:We can't achieve break-even fusion in controlled situations on Earth in labs. How can we expect to use fusion for space-flight? It's hard to to manufacture an excuse for this...
We don't have such crystal balls. There may be some technology that will leap-frog the dream of fusion propulsion, but we don't know, yet. Bush killed NASA's breakthrough propulsion program. Granted, some of the ideas (extracting and using energy from the quantum vacuum) were pretty "out there", but I don't think W could have wrapped his brain around those, anyway. It was an easy place to cut. Too bad, because if we really want to send humans out of Earth's environs, we need to get away from launching chemicals, combusting them and tossing them out the back of a rocket. It costs 'way too much to get those materials in space to begin with.cjackson said:Oh and I'm not asking whether it would be practical with today's technology, but rather 100 years or more into the future.
Think back to 1911. There was no way back then to predict the world of 2011, and there is no way now to predict the world of 2111.cjackson said:Oh and I'm not asking whether it would be practical with today's technology, but rather 100 years or more into the future.
Ryan_m_b said:It boggles my mind that people use phrases such as "in one hundred years" in a "legitimate" way. No offence intended but as D H points out it's ultimately futile.
Did they mention "flying cars"? Flying cars were a yearly theme in pulps since the early 50's, IIR. At least George Jetson's vehicle (and his maid) were fanciful.Janus said:Case in point: In 1985, I bought a "Radio and Electronics" mag which tried to predict what the world of 2000 would look like, a mere 15 years later. They missed way more often than they even got close.
turbo said:Did they mention "flying cars"? Flying cars were a yearly theme in pulps since the early 50's, IIR. At least George Jetson's vehicle (and his maid) were fanciful.
Janus said:No, but they did predict that at on some major highways your car would "drive itself" under the control of a central traffic control system. The one "hit" That I remember was a system equivalent to GM's On Star.
cjackson said:Would fusion make for practical applications in high speed interplanetary propulsion?
Or would beamed propulsion be better?
The political reasons were several. The 1963 nuclear test ban treaty. A public that did not understand but certainly did fear anything "nucular." A nascent space agency that was very aware of public sentiment and very much wanted to distant itself from its military roots.cmb said:Project Orion, which aimed to use nuclear pulse propulsion, was canned for political reasons, but reached a demonstrator stage, of sorts, at least using conventional explosive pulses.
D H said:The term "political reasons" is a bit belittling.
"The technical findings of the project have not been seriously challenged by anybody. Its major troubles have been, from the beginning, political."
"The story of Orion is significant, because this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons."
If you read the article (and you are the one who supplied the link), it describes those political reasons in details.cmb said:To be specific, I do not personally know what all the exact reasons were. I wrote 'political reasons' because of what Freeman Dyson wrote in his 1965 Science article "Death of a Project":"The story of Orion is significant, because this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons."
D H said:That quoted phrase from the article is baloney. It might have been the first time that one of Dyson's pet projects was "suppressed for political reasons." There are plenty of predecessors ...chemical warfare, biological warfare, eugenics, human experimentation.
Ryan_m_b said:I feel it is important to note ...there is no guarantee that the thing could or would work.
Exactly. The only working prototypes were small dinky things that used convention explosives. Switching to different technologies and scaling up by many orders of magnitude is something that engineers at least have learned doesn't work on the first try. Or the second. Or the third. Or the ... And that's just the explosion and the pusher plate. I can imagine that the physical integrity of the pusher plate would be another problem. There would be one heck of a shock impulse going through the plate. I would think that that plate would have to be pretty much deformity-free.Ryan_m_b said:I feel it is important to note that even disregarding the political factors involved in Project Orion there is no guarantee that the thing could or would work. I often get into discussions with people who pretty much assert that the only thing needed to finish Orion is building it but (correct me if I'm wrong D H) whilst a lot of theoretical work was done and some pictures were drawn there is no firm design.
Fusion is the process of combining atoms to release energy. In the case of spacecraft, fusion involves fusing together hydrogen atoms to form helium, which releases a large amount of energy. This energy can then be harnessed to power the spacecraft.
While fusion has been successfully achieved in controlled environments on Earth, it is still a challenge to make it work in a practical and sustainable way for spacecraft. Many research efforts are currently being made to overcome this challenge.
Fusion offers several advantages for spacecraft, including a nearly limitless supply of fuel (hydrogen), high energy density, and the potential for long-term and sustainable power generation.
One of the main disadvantages of fusion for spacecraft is the difficulty in controlling and sustaining the fusion reaction in a small and confined space. Additionally, the technology and infrastructure needed for fusion power generation in space is still in its early stages of development.
While there have been significant advancements in fusion technology, we are still a few years away from using it as a practical power source for spacecraft. More research and development is needed to make fusion a reliable and efficient option for powering spacecraft on long-distance missions.