[kir2yar]

http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2011/06/23/white-trash-repairs-historical-thursday-jet-nuclear-propulsion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThereIFixedIt+%28There%2C+I+Fixed+It.%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Project Orion was a government program testing the feasibility of using atomic weapons as propulsion systems. The idea, while obviously complicated when you get into the details, is actually quite simple. Rockets need to go fast and far. To go fast and far though, you need an extremely powerful force to push you. Chemical boosters, like the ones still used today on space shuttles, worked well but were inefficient and under-powered.

[The E]

Yes? We know Project Orion is awesome (in a "holy ****, this is real-life supervillain stuff" kinda sense).

If you want to see something scary, look up Project Pluto....

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Wasn't that how Tintin's rocket was supposed to be working ?

Chemical boost for take off, then nuclear propulsion 'till landing on the moon ?

[The E]

Not knowing how that one looked, I can't say. If it involved dropping nuclear warheads out of the rear end, spraying a pusher plate with reactant, then detonating the warhead in order to flash the reactant into plasma and then absorbing the created thrust with a massive pusher plate, then yes.

[Ravenholme]

I have a friend who's obsessed with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, I'll point him this way at some point so he can discuss his love for it. (It's Useful_Dave, for those who remember him hanging around in the BP threads)

[ssmit132]

If you want to see something scary, look up Project Pluto....

Heck, that didn't even need the load of warheads; just flying over would cause enough damage...

[Thaeris]

You can actually build space ships in Laminar Research's Space Combat with this type of propulsion, if that's of any interest.

[Pred the Penguin]

Is that worth trying out. O_o

[Thaeris]

The program was incomplete, to say the least. It was also far from the level of sophistication that X-Plane is, even the old X-Plane 7 which it was based on.

However, if you have any interest in spacecraft general design configuration, Newtonian physics, etc., it's worth trying. Check the link below:

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=10742

There should be download links on the page. The program works on your desktop and is available for Mac, Windows (XP and Vista should work just fine - no idea about 7, though it should work as well), and Linux. It's free, so it can't hurt to try it. Just understand that it is what it is - if it had multiplayer capabilities, it would actually be really cool.

As a disclaimer, if you want Newtonian physics at a more refined level, get a game like IWar, etc. If you want more diversity in your spacefaring, you might need to grab Orbiter. If you don't care to make your own assets, you can get free add-ons from X-Plane.org.

[Kosh]

I have a friend who's obsessed with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, I'll point him this way at some point so he can discuss his love for it. (It's Useful_Dave, for those who remember him hanging around in the BP threads)

When it comes to nuclear propulsion, long term this is a better way to go.

[redalbatross]

It's not as ridiculous as it sounds, provided they used a chemical booster to get the craft into space before the nukes started going off. Atmospheric pulse-detonation engines have been tested and might even be in regular use if you believe in the existence of the Aurora Project (one of the less wackier supposed black projects, as those things go).

[G0atmaster]

How would you slow down?

[FreeSpaceFreak]

How would you slow down?

Same way it's currently done with chemical engines. Reverse the ship and fire the engine (or the nukes) forward.

[G0atmaster]

Do you have any idea how much more fuel room that would take??? Spending many nukes to get the ship flying really really fast, and then burning hydrogen to slow it down??

[The E]

Umm.

In the absence of magic law-of-inertia-negating tech, there is no other way for a spaceship to stop.

Well, unless you plan on stopping by ramming planets, but research shows that option to not be optimal for crew or equipment safety.

[Angelus]

Umm.

In the absence of magic law-of-inertia-negating tech, there is no other way for a spaceship to stop.

Well, unless you plan on stopping by ramming planets, but research shows that option to not be optimal for crew or equipment safety.

well, if the ship uses a small forrest moon, covered with gum trees and moss...

[Black Wolf]

Umm.

In the absence of magic law-of-inertia-negating tech, there is no other way for a spaceship to stop.

Well, unless you plan on stopping by ramming planets, but research shows that option to not be optimal for crew or equipment safety.

well, if the ship uses a small forrest moon, covered with gum trees and moss...

You know gum trees aren;t actually in any way gummy, right?

[newman]

You know gum trees aren;t actually in any way gummy, right?

Lies! You obviously didn't play the documentary series called "Monkey Island". Rubber trees are well documented there. Go. Play. Learn.

[Nuke]

Do you have any idea how much more fuel room that would take??? Spending many nukes to get the ship flying really really fast, and then burning hydrogen to slow it down??

to slow down turn the buisness end (the side with the "engine") of the ship retrograde and commence "burning". but of course in the context of an orion drive, your engine is a nuke on a spring, and burning is nuking. orion drive would make it difficult to dial up the exact amount of acceleration you need for some orbital maneuvers, so some secondary form of propulsion would be needed when you need to have finer control. orion drive seems good for long haul interstellar flights, not quite something you would want to explore the solar system with.