x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) (04/04/91)
From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) Does anyone out there know anything about the recently report DOD atom splitting high energinic engines. The NEW YORK TIMES reported a little article on this 3 APR 1991. It sound very interesting, but very few details were given. I remember some program back in the 50s-60s era of a nuclear rocket engine that left radioactive material all over the atmosphere. Anyone know how this new idea would work without imitting radioactive particles everywhere and what would happen in a wreck???? Sounds neccessary for high load launches and long range missions like to Mars, but how close in time are we to really doing this? [The article says the code name for the program is Timberwind, and it has a specific impulse of "more than 900 seconds", twice that of the space shuttle's main engines. You might have more luck with this question on sci.space. --CDR] Charles K. Bergman CDT USMA '93 x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu x35147d3@usma8-emh2.army.mil P.O. Box 54 U.S. Corps of Cadets West Point, NY 10997
rcg@lpi.liant.com (Rick Gorton) (04/18/91)
From: rcg@lpi.liant.com (Rick Gorton) >I remember some program back in the 50s-60s era of a nuclear rocket engine that >left radioactive material all over the atmosphere. Anyone know how this new >idea would work without imitting radioactive particles everywhere and what >would happen in a wreck???? The name of the project was Project Pluto - there was a lot of detail in an article in "Air & Space" magazine (associated with the Smithsonian) sometime within the last year. The issue got put in the circular file in a fit of cleaning, but was very interesting. The author was one of the participants in the project. Hope this helps shed some light on the older project. [Hmm, sounds like Project Orion. You're better off asking in sci.space anyway. --CDR]
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (04/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu >From: rcg@lpi.liant.com (Rick Gorton) >>I remember some program back in the 50s-60s era of a nuclear rocket engine that >>left radioactive material all over the atmosphere... >The name of the project was Project Pluto... > [Hmm, sounds like Project Orion. You're better off > asking in sci.space anyway. --CDR] Actually this confuses two separate projects, and asking about Project Pluto in sci.space might be unproductive. Project Orion was a (large!) rocket propelled by nuclear bombs. Fallout from an Orion launch would have been comparable to a single atmospheric hydrogen bomb test, and it would have launched several thousand tons of payload into orbit. Despite some attempts to get funding out of the military, Orion was basically a civilian space project. Project Pluto was an intercontinental cruise missile powered by a nuclear ramjet, with a cruising speed of Mach 3 at sea level and an essentially infinite range. This is what the Air&Space article was about. Pluto was undertaken more or less as a backup project when ICBMs still looked iffy. The extremely high speed would have made it fiercely difficult to intercept. Design work got as far as a test firing of an experimental (not flight ready) engine, which worked. The success of the ICBM projects removed much of the need for Pluto, and certain practical problems started to get more attention: it was decidedly unstealthy, the need to fly it over friendly territory to reach the Soviet Union was troublesome because its radiation (an unshielded gigawatt reactor) and shock wave were lethal to anything near its path, and the final nail in its coffin was the impossibility of testing it safely. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (04/19/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov In article <1991Apr19.070810.13753@amd.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes... >Project Orion was a (large!) rocket propelled by nuclear bombs. Fallout >from an Orion launch would have been comparable to a single atmospheric >hydrogen bomb test, and it would have launched several thousand tons of >payload into orbit. Despite some attempts to get funding out of the >military, Orion was basically a civilian space project. Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe," and John McPhee, "The Curve of Binding Energy" are two readable and readily available books that discuss (among other things) Project Orion. The basics are pretty much as Mr. Spencer describes. Yes, nuclear _bombs_ for propulsion. The bottom of the ship would have been a massive parabolic "pusher plate." The idea was tested on a very small scale with chemical explosives. The USAF was quite interested, and envisioned, says McPhee, a space battleship with maneuvering systems and weapons. (He described the basic postulated defensive tactic of a nuclear-bomb-powered spaceship as turning the pusher plate toward the enemy -- "Go ahead, hit me.") Science fiction writers Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven co-opted the idea for their novel "Footfall." --Joe