JavaScript and Cookies are required to view this site. Please enable both in your browser settings.
Nuclear Powered Spaceshuttle - Section 3

Go Back  

Nuclear Powered Spaceshuttle 

Current Rating:

Join NowJoin Now
 
  #21  
Old 07-19-2014, 12:07 PM
deanmine's Avatar
deanmine
Offline:
They Lied. There ALL LIES
Poster Rank:292
<--We Did It. So Can You
Join Date: Mar 2013
Contributions: 48
 
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss4196
Ya Know, back in the '80s Ronald Reagan scared the piss out of Russia with this.... Star War's Program... We Sat And Watched The Reds Build The Most Expensive Radar Defense That Basicly Bankrupt that country...... only to reveal the STEALTH...... so ya .. u may have a point...lol. big time....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-19-2014, 01:47 PM
spycosis's Avatar
spycosis
Offline:
My Rank: CAPTAIN
Poster Rank:204
Tomcat
Join Date: May 2010
 
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Quoted: 3196 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
19/20 16/20
Today Posts
1/11 sssss7045
The mathematics behind it are ridiculously complicated, given that the detonation timings have to be continually adjusted to account for the increasing acceleration.
At 1% of the speed of light, the time taken to travel 100 metres would be 0.0000033 seconds (basically just over 3 millionths of a second). That is a small window in which to eject the device from the spacecraft and detonate it. Getting up to 10 % Lightspeed and the window for bomb release and detonation is down to 300 nanoseconds. I'm not a nuclear physicist and I'm sure they have thought of this problem already, but modern thermonuclear weapons take a millionth of a second to release the bulk of their radiation energy output. By the time that energy has hit the spacecraft it will be too far away for it to be effective. I can only imagine this method of propulsion will work if we make some incredible advances in the field of nuclear science. To clarify, the amount of material that was actually converted to pure energy in the Hiroshima bomb was measurable in fractions of a gram, yet to produce that energy we need a device that weighs thousands of kilos, and as a side effect, the uranium / plutonium atoms are broken apart into some of the most radioactively lethal elements known to man. If we can perfect the mass to energy conversion we may have a chance. A nuclear bomb can't even achieve a 1% conversion rate, which means more than 99% of the mass of a nuclear bomb core is unnecessary baggage.
Personally I think the discovery of the Higgs boson may be the key that allows us to travel at light speed, not just a fraction of it. If we can neutralize our mass, there is nothing to impede acceleration to ludicrous speeds.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to spycosis For This Useful Post:
deanmine
  #23  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:18 PM
deanmine's Avatar
deanmine
Offline:
They Lied. There ALL LIES
Poster Rank:292
<--We Did It. So Can You
Join Date: Mar 2013
Contributions: 48
 
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss4196
closer u get to the speed of light the more massive an object.... i think the key to light speed will have to be with "entanglement" or "spookey action from afar"..... quantum tunneling is another strange thing that we need to understand.... on the dark mater and dark energy side of things, who the fuck knows.....we got a pretty good grasp on the big stuff, were learning about the small stuff.... its this "dark" stuff that makes us look silly
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:37 PM
Xfactor's Avatar
Xfactor
Offline:
Avoiding Limelight
Poster Rank:135
Male
Join Date: May 2009
Contributions: 6
 
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Quoted: 2196 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 17/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss11496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntwadumela View Post
Scientists will build a spaceship when they figure out how to harness the unfathomably high quantities of energy that is released when matter and anti-matter are unionized.

Scientists are weary because an anti-matter bomb would make a nuke look like a stick of dynamite.



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


Positron bomb don't emit radiation. Therefore we might use them.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:01 PM
spycosis's Avatar
spycosis
Offline:
My Rank: CAPTAIN
Poster Rank:204
Tomcat
Join Date: May 2010
 
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Quoted: 3196 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
19/20 16/20
Today Posts
1/11 sssss7045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xfactor View Post
Positron bomb don't emit radiation. Therefore we might use them.
What do you mean ? A positron bomb collides electrons and positrons together. Each collision produces 2 gamma ray photons, and the 2 opposing particles annihilate each other. They produce massive amounts of radiation.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-19-2014, 08:35 PM
deanmine's Avatar
deanmine
Offline:
They Lied. There ALL LIES
Poster Rank:292
<--We Did It. So Can You
Join Date: Mar 2013
Contributions: 48
 
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss4196
ya, cold fusion is the safer....the hypothetical dream they believe wont create radiation however some materials spontaneously and naturally emit radiation
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to deanmine For This Useful Post:
spycosis
  #27  
Old 07-20-2014, 09:55 PM
Xfactor's Avatar
Xfactor
Offline:
Avoiding Limelight
Poster Rank:135
Male
Join Date: May 2009
Contributions: 6
 
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Quoted: 2196 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 17/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssss11496
Quote:
Originally Posted by spycosis View Post
What do you mean ? A positron bomb collides electrons and positrons together. Each collision produces 2 gamma ray photons, and the 2 opposing particles annihilate each other. They produce massive amounts of radiation.
Not sure but if I remember correctly in the mid 90s
the USAF named a antimatter weapons a positron bomb.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/articl...am-2689674.php
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Xfactor For This Useful Post:
spycosis
  #28  
Old 07-21-2014, 06:54 AM
spycosis's Avatar
spycosis
Offline:
My Rank: CAPTAIN
Poster Rank:204
Tomcat
Join Date: May 2010
 
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Quoted: 3196 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
19/20 16/20
Today Posts
1/11 sssss7045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xfactor View Post
Not sure but if I remember correctly in the mid 90s
the USAF named a antimatter weapons a positron bomb.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/articl...am-2689674.php
You're correct. A positron bomb is an anti-matter weapon, so not actually past the drawing board stage yet. They can't produce antimatter in large enough quantities yet and there are huge problems regarding the stability of such a device.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to spycosis For This Useful Post:
deanmine
  #29  
Old 09-06-2014, 01:49 AM
hunter86
Offline:
My Rank: PRIVATE
Poster Rank:11175
Join Date: Mar 2013
 
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssssss11
Travel by means of nuclear fusion would be far more efficient
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hunter86 For This Useful Post:
deanmine

Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2010 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO