Project Orion-Like Space Vehicle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of using nuclear propulsion for interstellar travel, specifically through a proposed project reminiscent of Project Orion. Participants explore various ideas related to the feasibility of nuclear detonations in space, the design of light sails, and the calculations surrounding kinetic energy and thrust generation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using a nuclear minefield to propel a probe with a light sail, proposing that detonating nuclear warheads in sequence could provide thrust.
  • Another participant references a historical proposal for a light sail made of minimal mass, emphasizing the importance of reducing mass for effective space travel and requesting calculations to support claims.
  • A third participant discusses the kinetic energy of photons and the energy transfer to the sail, expressing skepticism about the adequacy of nuclear energy for propulsion based on their calculations.
  • Subsequent replies challenge earlier calculations, noting potential errors and suggesting that the mass of the vessel would need to be significantly lower than initially proposed for the scheme to be viable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and calculations related to nuclear propulsion and light sail designs. There is no consensus on the adequacy of the proposed energy sources or the mass of the spacecraft.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in calculations and assumptions regarding energy transfer, mass, and the effectiveness of nuclear detonations in space are noted but remain unresolved.

Xforce
Messages
73
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
The Orion project was available with current technology... however carry thousands of nukes on board might not be a great idea
Nations prohibit the detonation of nukes in space, but I don’t know there is a better way to use these weapons of mass destruction, than propelling a probe on a interstellar travel at relativistic speeds in the near future.

Also, the origin Orion, where all the nukes are carried onboard, will reduce the top speed because of the rocket equations. What about a nuclear mine field?

My idea is, having a probe less than a ton, attached to something like a light sail, tens of kilometers across, but only tens of microns thick, hold together by nanomaterials.

There are around 10,000 nuclear warheads in the world’s arsenal, mostly from America and Russia. We can arrange them into a slightly curved line (curvature decrease as far away from sun) each time when the probe passes a nuke, the nuke detonates nanoseconds after. The thin sail will ablates each time, providing extra thrust than the light pressure, and prevent overheating... when all the nukes have been detonated, the probe should be able to reach relativistic speeds, even sub-light speeds.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the 70s, someone made a daydream proposal.

Make a light sail, only 1 atom thick, but the size of the Moon. The total mass of the vessel including sail and payload was only one or two grams. It would accelerated by lasers in close orbit around the Sun. He calculated that it could achieve 0.3 c before being out of range for the lasers. I got two takeaways from reading that.
  1. The number one thing you can do to improve a space travel idea is not a more powerful engine, it is to reduce the total mass.
  2. People are more likely to listen to your idea if you can do the calculations; even back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Can you show us the calculations to back up what you said?
Xforce said:
having a probe less than a ton
...
the probe should be able to reach relativistic speeds, even sub-light speeds.the probe should be able to reach relativistic speeds, even sub-light speeds
 
The kinetic energy of photons is small indeed. Since they collide with the sail and reflected back, the energy the photon passed to the spacecraft is twice it’s own kinetic energy. So each photon gives E=2*h*c/λ of energy ...
A ton of stuff traveling at .1c will have momentum of Ek=((1/√(1-0.1c2/c2))-1)*mc^2 which at 0.1 c means the kinetic energy of 1% mass converted to energy (interestingly, a bit more than the energy from fusion) or simply 9*10^17 joules. (At this point, I start doubting the nukes are enough)
Let’s suppose each of those nukes yields a megaton, which is 4.18*10^15J . To make calculations easier I’ll use 4*10^15J. Depends on the distance from the detonation, or the strength of the material, but since the energy is randomly emitted in all directions, it will take a infinitely large sail to let 50% photons impact the sail. So let’s say there is a device that directs the radiation, so exactly 50% energy impact the sail on perpendicular direction (this is very unrealistic too), so the total photonic energy onto that huge sail is 2*10^19J The photonic drive have a terrible ratio of power to thrust. At 300Mw per N, if we times this by a second we get 3*10^8J of total energy for 1J of effective energy... this means only 7*10^10J is put onto the spacecraft . In reality the energy is mostly taken up by neutron radiation and alpha radiation... I’m sure they give off more thrust but I still doubt that is enough. Sorry for my clumsy calculations
 
Xforce said:
9*10^17 joules
You forgot a factor of 2, but pretty close.

Xforce said:
this means only 7*10^10J is put onto the spacecraft .

I didn't check that calculation, but the conclusion is that this scheme is on the order of 107 times too little is the right conclusion. In other words, the mass of the vessel would have to be closer to 1 gram than to 1 ton.

OK, now think the next step. How small could we make the mass of a space probe for it to still be useful? In post #1, you just arbitrarily threw out 1 ton.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
20K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K