https://xkcd.com/2929

Alt text:

While it seemed like a fun prank at the time, I realize my prank fire extinguishers full of leaded gasoline were a mistake.

  • Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    So, about Project Orion from Wikipedia

    In August 1955, Ulam co-authored a classified paper proposing the use of nuclear fission bombs, “ejected and detonated at a considerable distance,” for propelling a vehicle in outer space.

    Excuse me what the fuck

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      4 months ago

      All chemical propulsion is just controlled explosions that we use to push a thing forward. It’s not that different, as long as you don’t use it in the atmosphere or near humans.

      • Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah I know, it’s the same principle behind modern fuel engines. Still, using nukes for propelling something forward is a bit of a stretch.

        • notabot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not just nukes, but nuclear shaped charges, at a rate of maybe one per second for a manned vehicle or even more for a faster cargo only mission.

          • Promethiel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you can trust the human monkeys with the “shaping” of a rock that got us here, how you gonna distrust the widdle trivial matter of taking little bits of something and splitting them.

            It’s shaped charges, it’s totally fine and sane. I’d happily get on the 1,000th Orion flight*.

            *Only if that’s a fresh hull

    • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not uncommon in scifi. Netflix’s Three Body Problem also explores such a solution in quite some depth.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I love The Three Body Problem, both the books and the show. But it bothered me to no end to read Netflix’s Three Body Problem.

        • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not familiar with the books, and the plot summary of their Wikipedia article does not mention nuclear propulsion whereas the article for the series does, so I went with that.

          Unless what bothers you is the x followed by the apostrophe and the s, which I never know when to omit the s, so it is what it is.

          • jballs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ah gotcha. Yeah you should check out the books if you’re liking the show! The books go into a ton more detail and the Staircase Project is pretty cool. Seeing it on the screen is cool too, but if you really wanna nerd out I highly recommend the books.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      It would probably work just fine, but it needs a huge ship. It could get up to a few percent of the speed of light.

      FWIW, nuclear test ban treaties are considered to outlaw it. I think we’re more likely to solve the technical difficulties of antimatter propulsion than we are to get over the political difficulties of nuclear bomb propulsion.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Just as an observation, there was a time when everyone on the Internet was gaga over the idea of Project Orion, and you didn’t dare speak out against it lest you get a hail of downvotes.

          It’d work fine in deep space. It’s not a good idea to launch from Earth this way. But again, we’ll probably find something better once we’re at the stage of needing it.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              Implosion-type nukes are all but impossible to make go off that way. They need a whole bunch of small explosives to go off very precisely to squeeze the core in just the right way. A short circuit or a crash won’t have the necessary precision. This isn’t entirely safe, either–it can still cause a small explosion with a flash of fallout and radiation–but it’s a manageable problem.

              Gun-types (Little Boy was one) are easier to go off on accident, but the US retired its last gun-type design decades ago. I don’t think Russia used them much, either. They’re only good for smaller bombs, and their safety issues make them questionable for any use. Smaller nuclear powers aren’t bothering with them.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Aren’t there plans again?

      Considering that you need huge shields and dampening and you only have the mass of the bomb itself as propelant, is it still as effective as controlled propulsion?