Comments on: The Kline Directive: Economic Viability

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:11:31 +0000

John Hunt, I like your passioned defense of beamed propulsion. Please put together some numbers, and explain your costs numbers.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:09:59 +0000

Robert Steinhaus, thanks for disputing the costs. I researched some more and found Project Orion’s own estimates and updated for 2012 dollars.The costs are actually greater at between $2.6E12 and $25.6E12.

I must also say that this technology requires anywhere between 300,000 and 30,000,000 bombs!!

By: ewj

ewj — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:51:32 +0000

please read Absolute relativity Theory of Everything. The past, present and future all exist at the same time ( not temporal time). Look at nature first not hypothetical strings and spend decades discussing ideas about ideas about ideas!

By: JohnHunt

JohnHunt — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:10:29 +0000

Also, the smaller the craft and the longer the travel time, the more feasible beamed propulsion becomes. In theory, craft could also be launched in parts and then rendezvous while traveling.

I should also mention there is the SunDiver and MagSail approaches.

By: JohnHunt

JohnHunt — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:05:05 +0000

Benjamin, there are several potential solution to beam divergence. I understand that particle beams are six times more efficient than light beams. Particle beams could be made neutral to reduce divergence. Also, laser/maser beams could be made more powerful using multi-bounce approaches. Fresnel lenses could colimate the beam. Also, energy could be beamed to stations throughout the solar system which could rebeam that energy starting with a narrow beam. Beams could provide energy to an incoming probe and then for propulsion after passing the Earth. SailBeam could accelerate small sails that, at the individual sail level, would not break apart until vaporized by a laser on-board the space ship. The course of those sails could be corrected by smaller lateral beams.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:56:26 +0000

Robert Steinhaus, pricing per DefenseNews article is based on today dollars.

There are several opposing arguments.

First, my thinking is that the AEC number of $50,000 does not take into account all the support services needed run as a purely commercial enterprise, from start to finish in today’s dollars. It is heavily dependent on tax payer subsidized manufacturing process. Further, reducing the device yield by 1,000 only increases the number of bombs required to achieve the same speed by 1,000 or more. So there goes your ‘inexpensive’ case.

Second, with regard to ‘peaceful nuclear explosives’, try exploding a ‘peaceful’ nuclear bomb in space in today’s world.

By: Robert Steinhaus

Robert Steinhaus — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:03:12 +0000

The CTBT was never ratified as a treaty by the Congress of the United States. Adherance to the CTBT is optional, but is currently observed, as part of US policy.
Peaceful nuclear explosives and fusion versions of this technology is actually specifically protected in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The nonproliferation Treaty provides that each signatory party to this treaty is guaranteed “any
peaceful applications of nuclear explosions” on a nondiscriminatory basis (United Nations 1975, Article V).
The corresponding article reads:
Article V
Each Party to this Treaty undertakes to take appropriate
measures to ensure that, in accordance with
this Treaty, under appropriate international observation
and through appropriate international procedures,
potential benefits from any peaceful applications
of nuclear explosions will be made available to
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to this Treaty on a
nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge to such
Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low
as possible and exclude any charge for research and
development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to
the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits,
pursuant to a special international agreement or
agreements, through an appropriate international
body with adequate representation of non-nuclearweapon
States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence
as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into
force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty
so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to
bilateral agreements.

In conclusion, there should be no insurmountable obstacles
to making a peaceful use of explosive devices in a space propulsion application under the ratified Non-proliferation Treaty.

By: Robert Steinhaus

Robert Steinhaus — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:52:17 +0000

Gary,
I would like to make you aware that AEC offered to industry in the mid-1960s a 50 kt Project Plowshare device for peaceful industrial use (well development, nuclear excavation, etc.) for $50,000 dollars. Additional design work was subsequently put into small PACER fusion devices (http://www.yottawatts.net) sized between 2 kt and 50 kt that were ultra-clean burning producing over 99% of their energy from fusion and producing only non-radioactive helium as fusion nuclear waste while producing practical, reliable, and economical fusion nuclear power generation. One requirement of the bare-bones PACER devices was that the device had to have a cost less than $2,000 each to compete with conventional nuclear power generation. While no PACER devices were ever built and tested at NTS, we did test other related technology like the LLNL W70-3 LANCE missile system warhead that shares many of the features of the preliminary PACER fusion peaceful nuclear explosive (PNE) designs.
Your estimates for the costs of Atomic Bomb Pulse Detonation Propulsion are excessively high and unrealistic.

By: GaryChurch

GaryChurch — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:04:04 +0000

What you posted about “atomic bomb pulse detonation shows you to be an idiot. Of course, that is obvious without pointing out your more ludicrous statements.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:41:33 +0000

Thanks John Hunt for pointing out beamed propulsion.

I left out both beamed propulsion and Chang-Diaz’s Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) because in my opinion, both are not interstellar travel technologies. Note this is my opinion, others may differ.

Here is why.

First, beamed propulsion has the fatal flaw of divergence, and so there is a limit to what you can do.

Second, VASIMR is basically a version of conventional rocket approach, and therefore the conventional rocket example is sufficient.

I do not accept the idea that conventional rockets are interstellar capable technologies, but have included them as a basis for comparison with the other technologies.