Why is nuclear pulse propulsion not being developed now?
A) Was Fachaufsätze betrifft, wird er ja. Leute analysieren immer noch das Orion-Programm auf Teufel komm raus, und versuchen, neue Beobachtungen und Perspektiven zu entwickeln. Es wird immer noch versucht, Verbesserungen daran zu entwickeln, z.B. das Konzept Mini-Mag, das zuerst im Jahr 2000
veröffentlicht wurde.
B) Er ist nur "Klassenbester" für eine sehr spezielle Rolle: muß mit minimaler High-Tech-Infrastruktur gebaut werden, am Boden, auf der Erde, und in eine niedrige Umlaufbahn geschossen werden. Sobald man sich außerhalb dieser Rolle bewegt funktionieren andere Systeme besser.
Für das gleiche Geld werden andere Riesenstrukturen, z.B. eine "Weltraumfontäne"
Space fountain - Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Extremely tall tower meant to launch spacecraft via pellets in vacuum tubes A model of a space fountain A space fountain is a proposed form of an extremely tall tower extending into space. As known materials cannot support a static tower with this height, a space fountain has to be an active structure : A stream of pellets is accelerated upwards from a ground station. At the top it is deflected downwards. The necessary force for this deflection supports the station at the top and payloads going up the structure. [1] A spacecraft could launch from the top without having to deal with the atmosphere. This could reduce the cost of placing payloads into orbit. Its largest downside is that the tower will re-enter the atmosphere if the accelerator fails and the stream stops. This risk could be reduced by several redundant streams. [2] The lower part of a pellet stream has to be in a vacuum tube to avoid excessive drag in the atmosphere. Similar to the top station, this tube can be supported by its own system of transferring momentum from a space-bound stream to a surface-bound stream. If the tube itself also accelerates the station-supporting stream, it would have to transfer additional momentum to an earth-bound stream in order to keep itself supported. The tube-supporting streams could also be designed to integrate with the station-supporting streams. [3] Unlike a space elevator , this concept does not need extremely strong materials anywhere, and unlike space elevators and orbital rings , it does not need a 40,000-kilometre (25,000 mi) long structure. [3] See also [ edit ] References [ edit ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
oder eine "Weltraumkanone/Vernekanone"
Space gun - Wikipedia
Method of launching an object into outer space via a large gun or cannon The Quicklauncher spacegun A space gun , sometimes called a Verne gun because of its appearance in From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne , is a method of launching an object into space using a large gun - or cannon -like structure. Space guns could thus potentially provide a method of non-rocket spacelaunch . It has been conjectured that space guns could place satellites into Earth's orbit (although after-launch propulsion of the satellite would be necessary to achieve a stable orbit), and could also launch spacecraft beyond Earth's gravitational pull and into other parts of the Solar System by exceeding Earth's escape velocity of about 11.20 km/s (40,320 km/h; 25,050 mph). However, these speeds are too far into the hypersonic range for most practical propulsion systems and also would cause most objects to burn up due to aerodynamic heating or be torn apart by aerodynamic drag . Therefore, a more likely future use of space guns would be to launch objects into Low Earth orbit , at which point attached rockets could be fired or the objects could be "collected" by maneuverable orbiting satellites. [ citation needed ] In Project HARP , a 1960s joint United States and Canada defence project, a U.S. Navy 410 mm (16 in) 100 caliber gun was used to fire a 180 kg (400 lb) projectile at 3,600 m/s (12,960 km/h; 8,050 mph), reaching an apogee of 180 km (110 mi), hence performing a suborbital spaceflight . However, a space gun has never been successfully used to launch an object into orbit or out of Earth's gravitational pull. Technical issues [ edit ] The large g-force likely to be experienced by a ballistic projectile launched in this manner would mean that a space gun would be incapable of safely launching humans or delicate instruments, rather being restricted to freight , fuel or ruggedized satellites. Getting to orbit [ edit ] A space gun by itself is not capable of placing objects into a stable orbit around the object (planet or otherwise) they are launched from. The orbit is a parabolic orbit , a hyperbolic orbit , or part of an elliptic orbit which ends at the planet's surface at the point of launch or another point. This means that an uncorrected ballistic payload will always strike the planet within its first orbit unless the velocity was so high as to reach or exceed escape velocity . As a result, all payloads intended to reach a closed orbit need at least to perform some sort of course correction to create another orbit that does not intersect the planet's surface. A rocket can be used for additional boost, as planned in both Project HARP and the Quicklaunch project. The magnitude of such correction may be small; for instance, the StarTram Generation 1 reference design involves a total of 0.6 km/s (1,300 mph) of rocket burn to raise perigee well above the atmosphere when entering an 8 km/s (18,000 mph) low Earth orbit . [1] In a three-body or larger system, a gravit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun
mehr in den Weltraum befördern über ihre jahrzehntelange Dienstzeit als der Orion über seine siebenminutige. Wenn man die Infrastruktur hat, um solche Sachen zu bauen, kann man auch im Weltraum bauen. Wenn man im Weltraum bauen kann, und die Option eines Atomantriebs hat, gibt es mehrere Antriebe, die besser für interplanetares Fahrten sind. z.b. die Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket
oder die Fission Fragment Rocket
. Wobei 'besser' hier bedeutet "geringere Entwicklungskosten, und liefert kurze Missionsdauern mit der gleichen Menge atomaren Brennstoffs". Sie sind nur nicht am Boden machbar.
C) Weil ein von Bomben angetriebenes Gerät echt ein Problem ist. Um etwas wie den Orion herzustellen, muß man Atombomben in Massen produzieren als ob sie IPhones wären. In einer vollkommenen Welt wäre das kein Problem: sie sind sowieso eine besondere Art von Atombombe, und sie werden nur in dem Orion benutzt. In Wirklichkeit leben wir aber in keiner vollkommenen Welt.
Das Problem besteht nicht so sehr in den Bomben auf dem Orion (die rein technisch gesprochen wahrscheinlich die am wenigsten schädlichen atomaren Gerätschaften wären, die je hergestellt wurden); das Problem liegt in der Schaffung einer Gesellschaft die (1.) Atombombenfabriken als völlig normal ansieht, und (2.) die Sorgen aller anderen für bedeutungslos hält, weil (3.) sie diese Bomben für einen edlen Zweck herstellt, jenseits der Sorgen analphatischer Bauern.
Die Kombination der Normalisierung von Atombomben, die Massenproduktion von Atombomben, und eine massive Abschußfähigkeit aus der Umlaufbahn, von einer messianischen Vision und selbsgerechtem Abscheu vor Ungläubigen (die nicht verstehen, daß dauerhafte menschliche Siedlungen außerhalb der Erde schon ein bißchen Fallout wert ist) begründet, ist wirklich eine der schlechtesten Ideen, die ich je gehört habe.