Most active commenters
  • hermitcrab(5)

←back to thread

200 points speckx | 24 comments | | HN request time: 1.527s | source | bottom
1. myrmidon ◴[] No.44434668[source]
This direct fusion drive is a really interesting concept. Maybe something like this could be used for interstellar travel in a century (or five), it is very encouraging that there is active research on it. ~5kg of thrust is not a lot, but over time...

This sounds significantly more feasible than nuclear pulse propulsion ("project orion" style) which I used to think was the only feasible approach to get to another star.

One thing that was unclear from the paper to me: How does the fusion drive "pick" D/He3 fusion over D/D? Can this be "forced" by just cranking the plasma temperature way up? Or do you still just have to deal with a bunch of neutrons from undesired D/D fusion?

replies(4): >>44434709 #>>44434890 #>>44435673 #>>44437383 #
2. floxy ◴[] No.44434709[source]
Roundtrip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-Pushed Lightsails

https://ia800108.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/24...

replies(3): >>44434967 #>>44436095 #>>44436871 #
3. topynate ◴[] No.44434890[source]
The easiest way (perhaps the only practical way) to favour the aneutronic reaction is to run a helium-rich mixture. The trade-off is lower power density.
4. myrmidon ◴[] No.44434967[source]
This is very interesting. Apparently beam collimation is much less of a show-stopper than I would have assumed.

But I don't see us putting a a 1000 kilometer lens into orbit anytime soon, and that multi-terawatt (sustained!) laser system sounds like a bit of a headache, too...

replies(1): >>44435453 #
5. cnity ◴[] No.44435453{3}[source]
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
6. MadnessASAP ◴[] No.44435673[source]
> This sounds significantly more feasible than nuclear pulse propulsion ("project orion" style) which I used to think was the only feasible approach to get to another star.

I still carry a torch for project Orion, it's impossible to not love.

* Feasible 50 years ago, not 50 years from now.

* No ultra lightweight fancy space age materials, steel and lots of it.

* Seriously, lots of it, let's launch a battleship to to Mars,

* or Jupiter,

* or Alpha Centauri.

* Gives everyone something way better to do with all those nuclear bombs they have laying around.

replies(4): >>44435865 #>>44436487 #>>44437112 #>>44446544 #
7. randallsquared ◴[] No.44435865[source]
> Gives everyone something way better to do with all those nuclear bombs

The counterpoint there is it gives lots of reasons to make so many more, increasing proliferation worries.

However, there's an SF novel that just came out that features nuclear pulse: Fenrir, by Ryk Spoor and (posthumously) Eric Flint. I enjoyed it.

replies(3): >>44435922 #>>44436200 #>>44436821 #
8. pavel_lishin ◴[] No.44435922{3}[source]
I should re-read Footfall, by Larry Niven. Quite a few banger lines in there.
replies(1): >>44441397 #
9. pavel_lishin ◴[] No.44436095[source]
> This paper discusses the use of solar system-based lasers to push large lightsail spacecraft over interstellar distances. The laser power system uses a 1000-km-diam. lightweight Fresnel zone lens that is capable of focusing laser light over interstellar distances. A one-way interstellar flyby probe mission uses a 1000 kg (1-metric-ton), 3.6-km-diam. lightsail accelerated at 0.36 m/s2 by a 65-GW laser system to 11% of the speed of light (0.11 c), flying by a Centauri after 40 years of travel. A rendezvous mission uses a 71-metric-ton, 30-km diam. payload sail surrounded by a 710-metric-ton, ring-shaped decelerator sail with a 100-km outer diam. The two are launched together at an acceleration of 0.05 m/s2 by a 7.2-TW laser system until they reach a coast velocity of 0.21 c. As they approach a Centauri, the inner payload sail detaches from the ring sail and turns its reflective surface to face the ring sail. A 26-TW laser beam from the solar system, focused by the Fresnel lens, strikes the heavier ring sail, accelerating it past a Centauri. The curved surface of the ring sail focuses the laser light back onto the payload sail, slowing it to a halt in the a Centauri system after a mission time of 41 years. The third mission uses a three-stage sail for a roundtrip manned exploration of e Eridani at 10.8 light years distance.

Very cool.

10. eszed ◴[] No.44436200{3}[source]
My favorite SF along those lines is King David's Spaceship, by Jerry Pournelle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David%27s_Spaceship

11. PaulHoule ◴[] No.44436487[source]
The electron beam ignition they talked about doesn't work. Heavy ion probably does

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_ion_fusion

but the accelerator needs like 100 barrels that are each 1 km. Maybe you can build a generation starship with that but whatever it is it's going to be big.

12. MadnessASAP ◴[] No.44436821{3}[source]
Yeah, if I'm being really honest, I don't want to give anyone an excuse to put a 1000+ nuclear bombs in orbit. Plus the few dozen you'd have to detonate in quick succession to even get it above the karman line.
13. foobiekr ◴[] No.44436871[source]
The Mote in God's Eye

I guess this will be the Niven-Pournelle thread.

14. hermitcrab ◴[] No.44437112[source]
I once spoke to Freeman Dyson at a book signing and asked him if Orion would work. He said he thought it would. And I asked him if it should be launched. He said probably not (IIRC due to the amount of radiation that would be put into the atmosphere).
replies(1): >>44437264 #
15. jerf ◴[] No.44437264{3}[source]
It is almost the epitome of steampunk romance. Launch an entire mid-20th century city and economy into space! And it might even work!

But, yeah, you probably don't want to be launching these routinely. People generally badly underestimate the number of nuclear explosions that have been set off on Earth and overestimate the badness of nuclear explosions. Putting one or two of these into orbit might be justifiable. It's certainly not a bad emergency plan to have in your pocket in case of emergencies. But you still certainly wouldn't want an entire industry routinely lighting these things off.

Still... the romance of it all...!

replies(2): >>44438533 #>>44441378 #
16. voxleone ◴[] No.44437383[source]
Project Orion was the promise of my youth [70/80s]. It speaks to both the technological courage and the philosophical optimism that once characterized space exploration — and how that momentum seems to have faded. By all accounts, it was technically feasible. And yet...

Of course there was 'the shadow of the Bomb'. From bold, almost reckless experimentation (Mercury, Gemini, early Apollo, things shifted to safety-optimized, cost-constrained engineering. And there was Cost and Politics; the post-Apollo world didn’t want to colonize the solar system. It wanted low Earth orbit, and safe returns. Budgets followed.

Kinda sad.

17. hermitcrab ◴[] No.44438533{4}[source]
He also made the interesting point that pretty much every big engineering project kills people.
18. m4rtink ◴[] No.44441378{4}[source]
While the Orion drive indeed works perfectly fine in atmosphere - or actually even better than in vacuum - no one says you need to launch them from the ground.

While it would be preferable due to the immense weight, you can either lift it by conventional means or possibly build it from local resources in the long run.

Once in space Orion is much less problematic & might be even easier to dock and maintain than normal nuclear thermal rockets, where the unshielded reactor will just put out insane amounts or radiation in all directions outside of its shadow shield.

Correctly engineered pusher plate should be much easier to deal with.

replies(2): >>44443551 #>>44443574 #
19. m4rtink ◴[] No.44441397{4}[source]
Orion drive is one long line of bangers by definition! ;-)
20. jerf ◴[] No.44443551{5}[source]
Having to lift them via some other means first eats away almost all their advantage.

However I believe your point holds more generally for nuclear-based space propulsion. That we fear "NUKULAR!" by about two to three orders of magnitude more than is justified has kept us from having halfway decent space travel for at least a good two decades, most likely. There are a number of nuclear propulsion mechanisms that would make things like going to Mars halfway feasible instead of flights of fancy, or doing science missions in months instead of years or even decades, but people hear that you're thinking of lifting nuclear material into space and all rationality goes flying out the launch window. Nuclear is so bad that it basically reaches out through outright magic and guarantees explosions and there's no conceivable amount of preparation that could be done in people's minds to prevent the evil radiation!!!!1! from escaping and eating people's puppies.

The funny thing is that even so quite a bit of nuclear material has been lifted into space, but hearing that doesn't make people go "oh, well, maybe it's less dangerous than I thought".

I mean, I know this isn't the safest stuff in the world but I sure hope all that anti-nuclear propaganda in the 20th century actually did help prevent nuclear war because it has certainly had massively negative impacts in energy generation, environmental damage, space exploration, and who knows what else.

replies(2): >>44443612 #>>44443649 #
21. hermitcrab ◴[] No.44443574{5}[source]
>no one says you need to launch them from the ground

I also suggested a variation of this to him. But (IIRC) he said Orion was pretty pointless if you didn't use it to lift you out of Earth's gravity well.

22. hermitcrab ◴[] No.44443612{6}[source]
Yes, unfortunately there always seems to be a massive knee-jerk reaction to anything with the word 'nuclear' in it. Consequently, many opportunities have been wasted.
23. hermitcrab ◴[] No.44443649{6}[source]
>I mean, I know this isn't the safest stuff in the world

Best estimates are that Chernobyl and Fukushima killed maybe ~5,000 (including long term).

The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China resulted in ~171,000 deaths.

24. marcosdumay ◴[] No.44446544[source]
> it's impossible to not love

As an idea, yeah. But if somebody actually tried to build it, the entire world would oppose for very good reasons.

Still, it's something that maybe we should build on space (outside of Earth's magnetic field).