NASA is finally going back to a nuckear powered rocket

The video covers some of the follies for national security such as wearing a gorilla suit and a hat while flying some of the early experimental jet aircraft just so a witness could be interviewed and the question comes up, "are you hearing what you are describing and saying?"

The meat of the video is about nuclear propulsion which could get humans to Mars with 45 to 100 days instead of the 6 months for a chemical rocket.

Funny and interesting IMO.. Hit a dust mote or a marble size piece of interstellar dirt at some of these speeds and "BOOM" ...we need a good force field besides the need for speed IMO

youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

The speed of a ship of this type engine is still insignificant compared to an approaching object at impact. Why even bring it up?

It is like comparing hitting a modern jet fighter to a cessna with a 50 cal. The damage caused by the aircraft going faster is insignificant compared to the damage caused by the energy of the bullet.

Well, until they figure out the Star Trek force fields the best idea for a spaceship may be a hollowed out asteroid. Rocket motors and crew quarters in the back and a lotta rock out front for the shield.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: 727Sky

The speed of a ship of this type engine is still insignificant compared to an approaching object at impact. Why even bring it up?

It is like comparing hitting a modern jet fighter to a cessna with a 50 cal. The damage caused by the aircraft going faster is insignificant compared to the damage caused by the energy of the bullet.

Force = mass x velocity

Your example is correct when both aircraft are moving slower than the bullet. When one of them is going faster than the bullet the example is no longer correct. A head on collision uses the combined velocity and mass to calculate impact force. Then there is inertia to account for. The higher the speed at impact the less time the object has to be accelerated out of the way. Creep up on the object slowly and you start pushing it out of the way as soon as you make contact. Hit it at a few thousand miles an hour and it tears you a new one...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Nothing will just happen to be going in the right direction at the right velocity to do little damage. It will ether miss or you won't even notice what happened. It will be that fast and catastrophic.

Just like wearing spacesuits in a ship during combat. What difference does it make for the chunky tomato soup to be all over the ship or partly in burst, leaking plastic bags? The crew will not know what hit them or that they were hit.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: 727Sky

The speed of a ship of this type engine is still insignificant compared to an approaching object at impact. Why even bring it up?

It is like comparing hitting a modern jet fighter to a cessna with a 50 cal. The damage caused by the aircraft going faster is insignificant compared to the damage caused by the energy of the bullet.

Force = mass x velocity

Your example is correct when both aircraft are moving slower than the bullet. When one of them is going faster than the bullet the example is no longer correct. A head on collision uses the combined velocity and mass to calculate impact force. Then there is inertia to account for. The higher the speed at impact the less time the object has to be accelerated out of the way. Creep up on the object slowly and you start pushing it out of the way as soon as you make contact. Hit it at a few thousand miles an hour and it tears you a new one...

Force = mass x acceleration. Newton’s second law of motion.

a reply to: 727Sky

NASA is finally going back to a nuckear powered rocket

What could possibly go............right?

NASA needs to stick to what it does best.......nothing much.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: 727Sky

NASA is finally going back to a nuckear powered rocket

What could possibly go............right?

NASA needs to stick to what it does best.......nothing much.

Ummm...well...

It is only Nuckear powered...

Not like there's any radiation involved...



YouSir

originally posted by: ntech
Well, until they figure out the Star Trek force fields the best idea for a spaceship may be a hollowed out asteroid. Rocket motors and crew quarters in the back and a lotta rock out front for the shield.

Landing sounds fun carrying all that mass.

a reply to: 727Sky

Starred and flagged mate.
I won't even watch the video, i have no time, but the engineering challenge itself is so huge, and even then the radiation woud be, hmm let's say, severe. Yes it could, in theory, work. But you would have to send a new crew every month, just to make sure they all don't die of rad poisoning during the trip. Yes this actually happened already, so i guess they ARE prepped for a second try....

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

Exactly.

Those tiny sand chips in the windshield of a car from 50-60 mph.

Now take that same piece of sand and hit it going 250,000 mph and see what it does to the light weight carbon fiber space ship.

That’s just a tiny speck of sand, now imagine a baseball size rock.

a reply to: 727Sky

like the one on russias unlimited milage nuclear powered icbm?

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: 727Sky

The speed of a ship of this type engine is still insignificant compared to an approaching object at impact. Why even bring it up?

It is like comparing hitting a modern jet fighter to a cessna with a 50 cal. The damage caused by the aircraft going faster is insignificant compared to the damage caused by the energy of the bullet.

Force = mass x velocity

Your example is correct when both aircraft are moving slower than the bullet. When one of them is going faster than the bullet the example is no longer correct. A head on collision uses the combined velocity and mass to calculate impact force. Then there is inertia to account for. The higher the speed at impact the less time the object has to be accelerated out of the way. Creep up on the object slowly and you start pushing it out of the way as soon as you make contact. Hit it at a few thousand miles an hour and it tears you a new one...

Force = mass x acceleration. Newton’s second law of motion.

Newtons second law refers to net force. If the object is travelling at a constant speed there is no acceleration. Therefore the result of Newtons law would be zero force. A train travelling at 100 mph is going to hit with considerably more than zero force even though there is no acceleration. That is the difference between net force and impact force. Newtons law refers to the amount of force necessary to accelerate an object, not the impact force of two moving objects.

Also, impact force requires inclusion of the angle of incident. A head on collision between two objects has greater impact force than a glancing impact which decreases as the angle of incident increases.

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

Technically, a glancing impact could result in significantly less impact force. However, I agree that at the speeds we are talking about it is likely that any impact would be catastrophic.

The space shuttle at its feeble speed was hit by a PAINT CHIP which caused enough damage to require a new windshield. When a ship is traveling at the kind of speeds we are trying to obtain or when Kirk or Picard says engage you would turn your crew into something resembling a red mist and the ship into small and large pieces of space junk.

Warp drive which bends space so the ship can surf might avoid some of these problems as the speed of the ship inside the warp bubble is basically static as the bubble itself carries you to your destination....hopefully without encountering some space fairing kid with a BB gun ?

Anyone remember the DOD Rods from space which would produce the same destruction planet side as a small nuclear device. An unpowered 21 foot tungsten rod dropped from space upon a city and "BOOM" no more city with the benefit of no radiation..

If I ever get abducted and before the probe in inserted I will ask how they avoid being turned into space debris at the speeds they supposedly travel; I promise

Project Pluto.
Missile tech

a reply to: Blackfinger

Basically they were afraid of atmospheric contamination, yet it’s sole purpose is destroy and kill lots of human beings. Makes sense.

It’s a scramjet, not a long range space vehicle.

Long range Space Vehicle..
Project Orion

a reply to: ITSALIVE

Like the NCC-1701 it would never land. Just orbit and send down small landers. And/or transporters if they figure out the technology.