Author Topic: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion  (Read 7762 times)

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:13:49 PM »
Who doesn't love the idea of spaceships with nuclear bombs as engines?  ;)

Ravenholme

  • Pop-Star Ruler
  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2010, 01:37:06 PM »
I would have guessed that you'd bring that up  ::)

Blind Mind's official Pop Star Ruler (Don't ask)

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2010, 01:42:27 PM »
I would have guessed that you'd bring that up  ::)

Thats just because you're not nuclear enough.

Ravenholme

  • Pop-Star Ruler
  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2010, 01:47:04 PM »
I would have guessed that you'd bring that up  ::)

Thats just because you're not nuclear enough.

Surely if I guessed, correctly, that you would bring up NPP, that makes me nuclear enough to predict your actions with regards to your love of splitting the atom.

Blind Mind's official Pop Star Ruler (Don't ask)

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2010, 02:03:11 PM »
I would have guessed that you'd bring that up  ::)

Thats just because you're not nuclear enough.

Surely if I guessed, correctly, that you would bring up NPP, that makes me nuclear enough to predict your actions with regards to your love of splitting the atom.

If you were nuclear enough, you would've brought it up yourself. :P

Firgof

  • BMS Administrator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Karma: +175/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2010, 03:15:19 PM »
D: I'm nuclear.
"Now it will punish you"

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2010, 03:30:51 PM »
D: I'm nuclear.

Nuclear-Saltwater Rocket or Nuclear Pulse Propulsion?

Firgof

  • BMS Administrator
  • Delusional
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Karma: +175/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2010, 03:54:44 PM »
NPP all the way to Alpha Centauri
"Now it will punish you"

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2010, 04:27:47 PM »
NPP all the way to Alpha Centauri

Biiiig generation ship?  :D

TrouserDemon

  • Global Moderator
  • Distracted
  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +21/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2010, 03:03:28 PM »
Better engine; a dyson sphere enclosed within the hull.

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2010, 05:45:18 PM »
Better engine; a dyson sphere enclosed within the hull.

That needs a far greater technological level for the society to attain, where as NPP can be done with some nice, basic sixties level technology. And it helps if you're fighting non-contact nuclear missiles, just point your pusher plate at them.  :P

MegaDeath409

  • BMS Web Developer
  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +13/-2
  • Just when you thought you'd known...
    • View Profile
    • Blind Mind Studios
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2010, 09:28:58 PM »
That'd be easy to rotate your pusher plate towards them, barring one problem, the plate, having to shield several megatons of force per square inch, must be very dense, hence very heavy. To add to the problem, your source of thrust is only able to be used on the opposite side of this plate, making it very hard to turn. I doubt you'd be able to turn it on time to protect yourself, and you would also waste a lot of reaction-mass, as this propulsion system implies you use very large nukes on occasion, not small ones continuously.

Useful Dave

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm Useful
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2010, 10:04:30 AM »
Thats true, but I'd certainly prefer NPP over NSWR as a combat propulsion source if only due to the problems if a fuel tank is hit and holed. Pulse units detonating prematurely would hurt, but not as bad as punctured salt water tanks flowing together..

Jachilles

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The yelling man.
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2010, 10:26:30 AM »
Would've figured you'd still be obsessed with your nukes Dave ^^

PringleMan

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2010, 12:54:14 PM »
I know this is somewhat belated and this thread has not been active in a long time, but can we discuss the physics of a nuke in space for a moment? Namely the forces created by a release of energy in an environment that has nothing else to compact the forces created i.e. no air or ground to disrupt. If there is no shockwave from air or ground the release of energy should create a thermal blast and radiation, but dissipate fairly quickly in the 3 degrees absolute temperatures of space correct?

blackfang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 01:56:38 PM »
Perhaps but if it impacts on another ship the tight corridors should provide a bonus to the blast so its quite efficient unless you are trying to bomb a fighter squadron ::)

Contag

  • Star Ruler Beta Tester
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2010, 09:57:26 PM »
I'd say even the fighter squadron is in a bit of trouble due to the EMP (even with shielding), and it's a bit hard to get out change the solenoids in space.
You'd certainly disrupt all STL communication though.

Dude

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2010, 03:35:06 PM »
NPP is ok, but every time i drive around in one of those suckers i get a sore neck.

xandalis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2010, 11:00:36 PM »
Can I haz firefly model for haulers? hehe

Mindstormer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Prepare to have your mind stormed.
    • View Profile
    • CSRPC
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2011, 03:34:30 PM »
Who doesn't love the idea of spaceships with nuclear bombs as engines?  ;)
Who is going to fund the materials for all those nukes? I think even gasoline nowadays gets better mileage for your $$.

P.S. Forum bump  ;)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 03:36:16 PM by Mindstormer »

Totallyunderpowered

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +15/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 08:59:57 PM »
Who is going to fund the materials for all those nukes? I think even gasoline nowadays gets better mileage for your $$.

P.S. Forum bump  ;)

Nothing gives more bang for your buck than a nuclear bomb. 

Seriously though, the materials required to make the fuel wouldn't be prohibitive at all.  Sorry for the necromancy, but the thing that continues to fascinate me about this technology is that it is so feasible, but it basically cannot be pursued because of political considerations.

darkova

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +3/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2011, 12:32:10 AM »
why not a APP (anti matter pulse propulsion)?

maxi

  • Delusional
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2011, 09:09:30 AM »
why not a APP (anti matter pulse propulsion)?
Diffcult to:
  • produce sufficient amount for propulsion ( for today, may be in the future)
  • use produced energy for propulsion
May be in the future it will be possible.

Totallyunderpowered

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +15/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2011, 02:25:12 PM »
why not a APP (anti matter pulse propulsion)?

As Maxi said, the difference is that we don't really know how to make antimatter in any real quantity (let alone store it and use it reliably), but we can make small nuclear bombs that could propel even a very large starship (in fact, you'd probably want a very large starship relative to, say, the space shuttle, because a more massive ship would have more inertia, offsetting the large impulse of force the ship would receive from a nuclear explosion).  Antimatter is very much science fiction, but NPP is science fact.  The only reason it hasn't been developed and isn't in use today is due to strategic arms limitation treaties. 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 02:27:43 PM by Totallyunderpowered »

forsaken1111

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2011, 02:44:49 PM »
Aside: The sig images are really out of control here. Can we get a size limit on images in sigs?
Dropbox - A free cloud storage tool.
Die2Nite  - A multiplayer zombie survival game.