Slashdot Mirror


Workable Fusion Starship Proposed

Adam Korbitz writes "A former colleague of Edward Teller — father of the hydrogen bomb — has published a new paper proposing a design for what could be the first practical fusion-powered spacecraft (PDF). As described at Centauri Dreams, the design has certain similarities to MagOrion, a 1990s-era proposal for a nuclear-powered spaceship with a magnetic sail and propelled by small-yield fission devices. The proposal's author also has links to the British Interplanetary Society's Project Daedalus, a 1970s proposal for an unmanned fusion-powered interstellar probe designed to reach 12% of the speed of light on its way to Barnard's Star."

20 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. from the article.. by Silm · · Score: 5, Funny

    a deuterium fusion bomb propulsion system is proposed where a thermonuclear detonation wave is ignited in a small cylindrical assembly of deuterium with a gigavolt-multimegampere proton beam,

    that has to be right up there with back to the future. I mean, it has a frickin' gigavolt-multimegampere proton beam

    1. Re:from the article.. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gigawatt is incorrectly pronounced jiggawatt.

      Fixed that pronunciation fubar for you.

      In English, giga is pronounced with a hard-g (as in "giggling girls give gifts"). Check the Oxford English dictionary, or any other English dictionary if you don't believe me. There was an attempt by the US NBS to redefine it to use a soft-g (as in "giant giraffe giblet gin"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga#Pronunciation Thankfully, this hijacking attempt to a new and wrong pronunciation has been quite unsuccessful - I have worked with a great many American scientists and engineers over decades, and every one of them uses the correct hard-g pronunciation (so do the newsreaders on US TV, even). I work in R&D at a fairly large US-centric multinational, and I have yet to hear anyone pronounce giga as "jigga", not even MBA-handicapped marketing types. And it's really hard to imagine an executive saying "jiggabuck" instead of gigabuck - the audience would crack up completely...

      If you want to pronounce giga with a soft-g, then please use French...

      And it's 10^9 watts, not 2^20.

      Indeed it is. Giga means 10^9 numerically, by definition. Alas, we are still fighting against recent attempts to hijack it to a new and wrong numerical definition.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  2. To save time & skip the pdf by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:To save time & skip the pdf by andereandre · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have read the pdf. Looks good to me, could find no errors in the math, so make it so. Now back to watching pr0n.

  3. Re:Oxymoron? by getuid() · · Score: 5, Informative

    If what you are proposing relies on technology already in use, or which could very likely be made usable during the next few years (i.e. technology which's basic scientific implications we understand, but just need a little time to figure some "engineering details"), then it's workable. If not, then most probably it's not.

  4. Great idea but pie in the sky... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for ideas like this but we won't be building things like this until we, as a planet, have a permanent manufacturing presence in space.

    Moon colony, orbiting L5 colony, whatever it is it must be permanent and able to manufacture using locally sourced materials because building something like this from within the gravity well doesn't make economic sense.

    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
    1. Re:Great idea but pie in the sky... by xch13fx · · Score: 5, Funny

      If anyone needs a colonist I was recently laid off. I can weld and swim well.(You swim to move in zero g right?).

    2. Re:Great idea but pie in the sky... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moon colony, orbiting L5 colony, whatever it is it must be permanent and able to manufacture using locally sourced materials because building something like this from within the gravity well doesn't make economic sense.

      Under what set of conditions does it make any sense to launch a manufacturing plant into space, then send up raw materials? I assume that's what you mean by "locally sourced" because there isn't any 'local' material at the L5 point.

      How would that ever be cheaper than launching pre-built sections and assembling them in orbit?

      No what I meant by locally sourced materials was either moon mined materials or asteroid mined materials. Probably the latter as I believe things like iron are a little weak on the moon.

      There's no way shipping ANYTHING up from the gravity well would allow us to build a ship of this nature within any reasonable time frame with the exception of using absolutely huge space elevators.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    3. Re:Great idea but pie in the sky... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no way shipping ANYTHING up from the gravity well would allow us to build a ship of this nature within any reasonable time frame with the exception of using absolutely huge space elevators.

      *THE* gravity well?

      The moon has one too. Asteroids have a different but similar problem in being so far away and having such different orbital mechanics.

      What exactly are you proposing?

      For practical engineering purposes the gravity well of the moon is weak enough to not be a problem for the transportation of materials off it's surface.

      Asteroids do have gravity obviously but almost nothing due to their size. Thus materials transported from them are again easy to move into open space.

      What I'm proposing is this:

      1) Establish a colony on the moon or at L5.

      2) Use moon materials to build the manufacturing framework.

      3) Construct mining ships for asteroid field work.

      4) Mine asteroids and use the materials to construct the large-scale interplanetary transport.

      Now while this is a workable plan it is _also_ pie-in-the-sky as we can't even get our collective butts to agree on how to get a primary established off planet.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  5. My memories of Edward Teller by MarkWatson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Edward Teller hired my Dad into the Physics department at UC Berkeley and I remember him as a gentleman - he was occasionally at our house. Once my parents had a costume party and Teller was provided with a bird costume - he did not want to wear the mask so he had these big white wings on. The SF Chronicle columnist Herb Caen ran a story the next day saying that Teller was dressed as the angel of peace. Until Teller died a few years ago, my Dad would occasionally travel to Berkeley to visit with him.

    1. Re:My memories of Edward Teller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it is inaccurate to categorize Oppenheimer as a communist sympathizer. My understanding is that Oppenheimer was more in favor of the Utopian ideals of communism and not the reality of Soviet Russia.

      But the root of the problem between Teller and Oppenheimer was that Oppenheimer opposed the hydrogen bomb (fission/fusion) and Teller was all for it. That made Oppenheimer an enemy to Teller.

      Teller, instead of leaving it as a difference of opinion as to whether such a powerful weapon was needed, went on the attack and set out to discredit Oppenheimer.

      In the cold war it was pretty easy to make Oppenheimer seem subversive. The time was paranoid and anyone with a different opinion was suspect. Others set out to paint anyone as communist who they didn't agree with. Teller used it to his advantage to silence and discredit a rival.

      Who knows if Teller or Oppenheimer was right. No fission/fusion device has ever been used in war. The only devices that have been used were the ones that Teller and Oppenheimer and many others invented.

      However, a good person, a patriot, and someone who in spite of his own misgivings about the kind of weapon he helped develop, did it anyway and in so doing probably saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, had his own life destroyed because Edward Teller was on a personal quest for his own glory, his own stature, and his own place in history.

      Edward Teller was an asshole. He took it personal that Oppenheimer opposed developing the hydrogen bomb and set out to destroy Oppenheimer for it.

  6. Re:Ramscoop design? by geckipede · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually it's too dense. At high speeds (significant fractions of lightspeed) a magnetic scoop acts like a very effective braking system in interstellar gas. A Bussard type ramscoop rocket could only be expected to reach about 0.12c even with highly efficient engines.

  7. That should have read... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... Edward Teller, the self-described father of the hydrogen bomb.

    Other people who worked on the project tend to disagree with that title.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  8. Re:Relativity and time dilation make my head hurt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, as an object approaches C the time dilation effect becomes such that from a frame of reference of the origin, the object never in fact can reach its destination. Would it not become in essence stuck in time? Secondly there must be some point at which if an object is travelling at x*C, there must be a speed y*C such that another object could reach its destination before the first object, even though the second object is travelling at a lower velocity relative to C. Or maybe not since both objects do experience time dilation.

    Please read up on Relativity sometime. There are a number of decent resources on the subject.

    As is, you've just lowered the IQ of everyone who read this post....

    Specifically...

    The time dilation effect on an object is irrelevant to an observer at its point or origin. It WILL reach its destination, unless it's aimed wrong, or hits something really hard.

    No, there is no such speed as you propose in your second conjecture.

    Time dilation is a wonderful thing. It helps to shorten trips from the point of view of the traveller. But it doesn't change the trip at all from the point of view of an observer back at the start point.

    Unless, of course, you're carrying one end of a wormhole with you on the voyage. Still doesn't change the voyage from the point of view of the observer back home, but can have some interesting effects later (if, that is, you consider time travel interesting, of course).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:Relativity and time dilation make my head hurt by MoralHazard · · Score: 5, Informative

    From your post, you don't make it 100% clear, but I suspect your understanding of time dilation might not be 100% accurate.

    Say the distance from Earth to another star is 1 light-year, and we manage to accelerate a probe to an average speed of 0.1*c (1/10th the speed of light). For the sake of our thought experiment, let's assume the probe comes back, too, for a total trip distance of 2 light-years.

    On earth, 20 years will have passed--it's a simple, easy "distance = rate * time" kind of thing. No time dilation to consider.

    If you placed a clock on the spaceship, though, you'd see some time dilation effects on the moving clock. It would have experienced less than 20 years' worth of time passing. So if your Earth-bound clock and your space clock were perfect, and you synced them up before the trip started, they would be out of sync when the ship got back.

    Remember, in your own reference frame, you don't experience any time dilation. The fact that the ship is travelling fast doesn't make clocks on Earth run slower.

    If this isn't clear, go read the Wikipedia article on time dilation, and read the part where it talks about muons decaying as they travel from the upper atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. That's the easiest example to understand, I think, as long as you get how radioactive decay operates.

  10. Re:Human starship has already landed on Mars? by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dude...you've got what appears to be about a 50px kinda round thing in a crater, and your first assumption is a man-made biosphere? Well, I've got about a hundred pictures of alien spacecraft for you to look at then....

    Seriously though, different planets have vastly different conditions, so it's no surprise you don't see things like this on Earth. I'd say it's essentially a sand dune. There's a _lot_ of similar formations on Mars. In fact, there's a few more on the string of pictures that original is from:
    http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m15012/m1501228.html

    There's one in the first image, there's some somewhat similar phenomenon in the second and third, there appears to be one in the fourth, two in the fifth, and part of one in the sixth.

  11. Re:Kinda optimistic by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, and what's worse, they can't even get acronyms right:

    practical fusion-powered spacecraft (PDF).

    That should be abbreviated as PFS or PFPS, not PDF.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  12. Oh, but it gets better by capn_nemo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read the proposal, you'll note that the proposed method of working in space seems to be that the rocket engine actually fires in two directions - first, it fires a very high energy plasma beam AT THE SPACESHIP, which, in the vacuum of space, turns the whole assembly into a Gigavolt capacitor. THEN the spaceship fires a GV proton beam back at the rocket. This proton beam then ignites a classic fission explosion (using Deuterium-Tritium), but "very small", and this DT explosion ignites a second, much more explosive Deuterium-only fusion explosion AWAY FROM THE SPACECRAFT. Repeat one million times per second, or as needed.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    If that's not exciting enough, the whole plasma/proton beam doesn't work on earth, so, hey, we use a disposable argon laser, which can generate a lot of power, but (sadly), is really inefficient. But wait, we can fix that! All you have to do is set off a small hexogene explosion around your rod of solid argon, and the laser will suddenly work at 80% efficiency. Oh, repeat that every microsecond or so.

    Honestly though, if you can get past the insane energies involved, he's come up with a rather brilliant way to use readily available fuel (Deuterium, as opposed to Deuterium Tritium, which is hard to come by), and using a whole chain of events, make the process really efficient (i.e. you need a lot less mass to make all this work). And, since your main burn is fusion (which consumes the fission by-products), not a lot of radiation to speak of (oh, well, there are some pesky neutrons, but who doesn't like neutrons?)

    1. Re:Oh, but it gets better by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you know your car runs on explosions? What could possibly go wrong? :P

      Or do you ride a bike to work?

  13. Re:Ramscoop design? by geckipede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, absolutely. It has been proposed as a part of laser-boosted lightsail missions to other stars. A full sized collector scoop would work in interstellar gas, but you only need a relatively small magnet if you are plowing through solar wind (er... stellar wind, since it isn't Sol?). A superconducting cable spooled out of a probe and given a current could be used as a braking system to decelerate at a destination star. I recall seeing an estimate somewhere that the peak deceleration of a relativistic craft like this hitting the heliopause would be about 12g, not comfortable but very effective and cheap way to slow down. Magnetic sails have also been proposed as a way to accelerate in the first place, but in that case you are limited to speeds less than that of the solar wind itself, so it is more suited to in-system missions.