leslie howard writes:
How NASA and Star City have it wrong
A few yers ago on the Discovery Channel a tv programme outlined how NASA had thought about using nuclear explosions to place large objects into Earth orbit in the 1960's. J.F.Kennedy was horrified at this as he strongly suspected that it would start WWIII due to the "arms race" and ordered that only chemical rockets should be used. However, the political situation has changed considerably since then and the Russians and Americans are working together in space, so the idea could possibly be resurrected.
The idea is quite simple: develop a saucer-shaped vessel with cannons round the perimiter capable of firing small nuclear shells ( say 25ktonnes TNT) underneath it.At the base of this "flying saucer" it is proposed that a large heavy blast shield be used for a number of reasons
It would provide a heat shield so it wouldn't simply burn up
It would provide a necessary radiation shield so as to protect the occupants
It would provide a buffer given the correct suspension system so that the entire "saucer" doesn't shake itself (and it's occupants) to destruction.
The idea was to fire 25Ktonne shells 4 times per second below this saucer and use the blast off these shells to propell the object upwards until it reached Earth orbit
The beauty of this idea is that weight and size (unlike chemically driven rockets) is no longer a problem .In fact the bigger and heavier the vessel is, the more efficient it becomes.
The problem in the 60's was radiation leakage into the environment; however since the development of the neutron bomb (which fits into a tank shell) it should be simple to devise a shell which has the nuclear blast with reduced radiation instead of the radiation with reduced blast. Power requirements are no problem whatsoever.Take some heat from the blast shield to power a turbine and generator.
Because weight is no longer a problem the blast shield and entire structure could be made of iron or steel, with a skin thickness of an Earth-bound ship, say 5-10mm.In one fell swoop something the size of the Space Station and weight of a submarine could be sent into orbit a once.
Astronauts would have better protection from space radiation because of the thickness of the skin,
and a trip to Mars with a constant acceleration of 1G would take a matter of weeks instead of a minimum 6 months each way, and no space sickness or depression symptoms associated with it.
Obviously chemically powered landers would need to be used for any Earth or Mars landings, but their size and weight should be insignificant. A "saucer" would never be able to return to Earth, because the blast shield would be too radioactive, so to send it safely out of the way a collision course with the Sun is recommended when the base blast shield is expended.
The cost of such a vessel could be around the same as that of a nuclear powered submarine, which any major power can afford, yet it could mean that nuclear arsenals could be transformed into some use.
Hope this sparks some interest and I would be interested to read some responses.
Is it april fools day again?
