NationStates Jolt Archive

It goes without saying that modern tech space rps are different from FT space rps not only in available tech, but in how they are rp'd. What is possible in FT space is not possible in MT space.

1. First off, you can have interplanetary colonies and even a colony on the moon. But note that you will not have instantaneous travel. Nor will you have anything except for MT probes outside the solar system. And even those will be just moving out of the system. In modern tech space rping, all space craft move relatively slowly. Whereas in FT it takes only an hour to go from earth to Mars, in MT, it takes 2 years if you use fossil fuels.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~cdpgrad/mars.html

2.Space Travel in MT is also going to have a negative impact on the human body, making it considerably linker, no matter close to earth or the other body it is. So soldiers who serve on the space station are going to be way to week to be able to fight a war on earth. You also need to take into consideration the difference in gravity of the various worlds.

3. Likely places for colonization in the sol system via modern tech capabilities:
the moon, low earth orbit, Mars, Diemos, Phobos.
You might be saying well, if we can get to those place surely we can get to Europa or Titan, it would just take a little longer.
True, but you have to remember that Europa orbits Jupiter which puts huge amounts of deadly radiation that can easily penetrate any material available in modern tech. So if you sent people to Europa, they would be dead before they reached the surface. Though if they did, and made it below the ice, they would be safe. But if you put a hole in the Europan ice to get below it, you would be sterilizing it by letting in Jupiters deadly radiation which would kill anything native under the ice.

4. Manual Movement of Sattalites:
Much argument over this.
Here are some resources for you:
http://www.smgaels.org/physics/97/MPEKNIC.HTM

All sats move around the entire world in their orbits. The only exception is geosynchronus orbits but those are almost always above the equator since that's the only place geosynch can exist.

5. It doesn't matter where in space you have your spy satellite, if your sat is located above the equator, you can still see inside a nation at the north pole or pretty damn close to it. Suppose Vineyard had a sattalite over Saudi Arabia, his territory in Earth V. Even without moving his Satallite over Russia, Europe or India, or North Africa for that matter, he would still be able to see inside those nations, via his sattalite located in orbit above his own nation.
This is due to the law of space sight:
Objects in orbit around earth have a very big field of view and can almost everything on the planet below them.
The best way to image this is with a geosynch satellite. But the same concept works with sats that have to move around alot.

6. National soverignty only goes up to 90 Kilometers or where the stratosphere meets the ozone layer. Every thing above that is international space.
It is bad to attack anything in that space unless you have good reason to beleive that said aircraft or sats, are going to be used to attack your nation.

7. Space planes are easily devopable, using modern tech such as by transforming space shuttles into troop transports and the like. Though the usefulness of armies and weapons in space in a MT rp is very low unless it is war sattalite. A war space station is possible depending on how its rpd.
Sats can be used for recon, to store and launch space based nukes, to act as an anti nuke shield, shoot down nukes, launch the rods of god, but to do so, you have to wait for them to move back into the best position for firing which could be up to 24 hours max 12 hour to 6 hours minimum depending where above earth they are located.

8. Nuclear weapons do work in space but their effects are much different from on earth. One difference being that in space, you don't hear the explosion.
Second, such an explosion would create an expanding shockwave ring that would jeopardize all sats in orbit whether yours, your enemies, or a neutral nations.

9. Space armies and armed troops on the stations and on the moon. These are not recommended cause bullets would penetrate the walls the shelter causing it to decompress and killing every one including the person who fired. Hence, firing a modern tech weapon on a space station or on surface moon colony would tantamount to a suicide bombing on earth.

10. Missiles from earth will take at least 26 hours to reach targets on the moon. Missiles fired at Mars will take no less than 1.9 years.

11. The lasers used in FT are don't exist in MT and if you use them in MT, it would tantamount to godmodding. Though MT lasers can be used for guidance and targeting, or even causing the components of some advanced weapons to overheat, they can't be used for things like laser rifles or death beams like the one from Independence Day or Star Wars.

12. Launches:
The cost of launching an American designed space shuttle is $500
where as the cost of launching a satellite is between $50 million and $400 million.
In determining costs of launches you must take into account the method of delivery into space. A space shuttle can deliver up to 5 sats into space where as a rocket can only deliver one. Shuttles tend to be reusable but require high maintenance where as rockets can only be used once. Don't forget that you have to add in the cost of the fuel that you are using.
If you are just starting out with a space program, you must realize that your first launch won't be successful. Nor will your first manned launch be successful. The only nation to date who hasn't lost people on the first space launch is China. But that is because they adapted technology they took from Russia.
Also you need to factor in that cost of building the sats.
A weather satellite costs $290 million to build and a missile launch warning satellite costs $682 million to build. So the cost of constructing a satellite depends on its purpose. Don't forget the cost of building or purchasing the rockets.
This should help: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite9.htm

13. Space Stations:
Space Stations are possible but:
A. They won't be like Babylon 5 and totally impenetrable to all weapons and tracking systems.
B. A space station will cost at least 28.2 billion dollars. That's for something merely the size of the international space station which isn't really that big. ISS is way smaller than most of the space stations rped here on NS. So you figure that if something that is 1/10 or 1/4 the size of your station costs 28 billion, yours will cost even more if it is bigger. Don't forget you have to factor in fuel costs.

14. One thing you need to have a space program:
Fuel, Fuel, Fuel, and Fuel.
You need fuel for everything, from shuttles, to rockets to space stations and sats. For the latter two fuel will be especially costly cause not only do you have fuel in them when you put them up but you have to constantly launch resupply missions to keep them fueled and supplied.
Lets not forget that you also have to launch maintenance and repair missions for your sats at least once every year. Many sats suffer wear and damage from the regular stream of particles that passes by earth and extremely high velocities. A photon leaving the sun reaches earth in less than 10 seconds. Now imagine that particle traveling that far that fast, hitting one of your sats. Even with sheilding, your sats and space station will suffer wear and tear that can be fixed by launching repair missions on a regular basis.
So this further increases the cost of the space program.

15. Another helpful source for working out orbital mechanics:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278778

16. Info for anyone wanting a modern tech moon colony:
http://forums.teamphoenixrising.net/showthread.php?t=30653
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1
http://www.answers.com/topic/colonization-of-the-moon
http://isdc2005.xisp.net/~kmiller/isdc_archive/isdc.php?link=sessionSelect&session=Lunar%20settlement
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/moon/reclaimingthemoon.htm

Vocabulary for those who are new to NS forums:

FT= Future Tech
MT= Modern Tech
Fuel= a source of energy derived from any one of the following:
fossil fuels
Rocket Propulsion of which there are several types:
Solid Fuels
Liquid Fuels
Hybrid propellants
Nuclear Propulsion systems
Ion thruster
For more info on the subjects of fuel see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm
http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/liquidfuelrocket.html
http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/solidfuelrocket.html
http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/arcjet.html
http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/ionrocket.html
http://www.planetary.org/learn/spacepropulsion/solarsail.html

More links:
http://www.astronautix.com/index.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04zx.html

Anything else that velongs here?

References to cost of launching things into space would be nice.

References to cost of launching things into space would be nice.
Working on it, but note that launching anything into space is going to be expensive, in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions. Unless I find something that proves this statement wrong.

Working on it, but note that launching anything into space is going to be expensive, in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions. Unless I find something that proves this statement wrong.

I think I remember hearing that space shuttle missions cost about $500 mil each (actually, I just googled and found that it's about $5000 per lb). However, for most young nations, a space shuttle is out of the question, so they'll have to rely on expensive non-reusable programs.

I think I remember hearing that space shuttle missions cost about $500 mil each (actually, I just googled and found that it's about $5000 per lb). However, for most young nations, a space shuttle is out of the question, so they'll have to rely on expensive non-reusable programs.
that is correct and those programs are even more expensive.

updated

Here is a link to a thread with more information on the subject:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278778

Here is a link to a thread with more information on the subject:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278778
Thanks, I didn't know about that one, so I added your link to the main thread.

added some stuff on rocket propulsion systems.

tag

Working on it, but note that launching anything into space is going to be expensive, in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions. Unless I find something that proves this statement wrong.

OOC: It depends actually. The cost per kilogram goes down as the payload capability of the booster increases. The American shuttle has a payload of 25 tonnes to LEO(The Buran had a payload of 30 tonnes). A proposed design from the sixities known as ROMBUS (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm) would have had a payload of 450 tonnes; and it was to be resuable.

Nitpickness: It takes 8 minutes for a photon to reach Earth from the Sun, the real hazard to satellites are debris and radiation. You could send people to Jupiters moons if you used a magnetic shield (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04zx.html). And it would take anywhere from 2 years to 45 days (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html) to reach Mars, it all depends on your propulsion method.

Good Links:
http://www.astronautix.com/index.html I spend a lot of time at this site just poking around. The best source of information I've found on spacecraft and boosters.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Another very good site. Lots of stuff about designing a craft(along with information about weapons and drives).

On point 2: with a large enough station or craft in space, you can spin it to produce artificial gravity and thus preserve the health of astronauts. A generally agreed upon size is 200 meters in diameter; anything smaller and to spin it fast enough for full earth gravity most people get motion sick. However, through special selection of astronauts/soldiers for low susceptibility to motion sickness, and perhaps live with lower gravity to still maintain their health while in a smaller station or craft.

On point 3: practically true, but technically not. With a sufficient mass of lead and or water surrounding the life supporting section of the spacecraft you could protect travellers from Jupiter's radiation, however the immense mass of such shielding (especially if you have expanded the life support section to a large enough size to spin it for gravity) would make the increased costs for fuel simply preposterous.

On point 8: Nuclear weapons only create a shockwave on earth due to interactions with an atmosphere, and they only produce a ring of shockwave due to interaction with a large flat surface, the ground. Consequently their useful radius is much decreased, save for some hypersonic shrapnel from their own casing. They still release prodigious amounts of light, which means things get hot. However, beyond a few kilometers anything shielded to take the raw heat of the sun should be unaffected. Direct hit thusly the only way to make a shockwave, by transmitting through the station, satellite, or vessel's own structure. Anything light enough to be feasibly launched into space can not be reasonably expected to withstand a direct hit from any sort of nuclear weapon, even relatively small warheads (10-20 kiloton range).

On point 9: Special fragmentary rounds developed for use aboard airlines on earth to prevent depressurization would presumably work equally well in space. These are designed so as to shatter on impact; against human flesh this can be devestating, but against solid metal or thick hardened plastic tends to be useless. Consequently body armor is especially effective against them. This doesn't preclude use of clubs, spears, swords, etc., however. It's generally impractical to armor the whole body, and perhaps some melee in MT space combat could be intersting.

On point 14: Almost completely true, except for in established earth orbits. Tethers with electrically conductive material can interact with the earth's magnetic field to either lower the satellite or station's orbit and produce power, or to raise the satellite or station's orbit at the expense of power. With enough solar cells, this should be a much more efficient way to maintain a station or satellite orbit than frequent resupply. check: http://www.tetherapplications.com/index.htm

A wonderful resource about real life space information, I have found, is the Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/). Includes a wide variety of developed or simply proposed rockets, landers, return vehicles, stations, etc. All likely very much possible, especially considering most were thought up in the 60's, and we have developed so much more since then. The only reason most of this stuff didn't come to exist was costs, of complete development and sometimes just launching; however I imagine that with most moderate sized nations this isn't so much of a problem.

OOC: It depends actually. The cost per kilogram goes down as the payload capability of the booster increases. The American shuttle has a payload of 25 tonnes to LEO(The Buran had a payload of 30 tonnes). A proposed design from the sixities known as ROMBUS (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm) would have had a payload of 450 tonnes; and it was to be resuable.

Nitpickness: It takes 8 minutes for a photon to reach Earth from the Sun, the real hazard to satellites are debris and radiation. You could send people to Jupiters moons if you used a magnetic shield (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04zx.html). And it would take anywhere from 2 years to 45 days (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html) to reach Mars, it all depends on your propulsion method.

Good Links:
http://www.astronautix.com/index.html I spend a lot of time at this site just poking around. The best source of information I've found on spacecraft and boosters.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Another very good site. Lots of stuff about designing a craft(along with information about weapons and drives).

For costs I refer people to the links that are sites made by people actually in the field.
As for the time it takes to get to Mars, we have no means, using modern tech to get there in less than 2 years. Might be able to do it in 13 to 15 months but 45 days would be something that we could do in the future and hence you are speaking about future tech and not modern tech.

For costs I refer people to the links that are sites made by people actually in the field.
As for the time it takes to get to Mars, we have no means, using modern tech to get there in less than 2 years. Might be able to do it in 13 to 15 months but 45 days would be something that we could do in the future and hence you are speaking about future tech and not modern tech.

*Ahem*

Look here: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/oriturnv.htm
If someone had the guts or stupidity to frequently use nukes in space, they could use Orion type nuclear pulse rockets (which have been zipping around minds and drawing boards since the late 1960's, as something they could do then, not some far future time assuming some newfangled technology) to send missions to mars with round trip times as short as 125 days. Round Trip.

On point 2: with a large enough station or craft in space, you can spin it to produce artificial gravity and thus preserve the health of astronauts. A generally agreed upon size is 200 meters in diameter; anything smaller and to spin it fast enough for full earth gravity most people get motion sick. However, through special selection of astronauts/soldiers for low susceptibility to motion sickness, and perhaps live with lower gravity to still maintain their health while in a smaller station or craft.

On point 3: practically true, but technically not. With a sufficient mass of lead and or water surrounding the life supporting section of the spacecraft you could protect travellers from Jupiter's radiation, however the immense mass of such shielding (especially if you have expanded the life support section to a large enough size to spin it for gravity) would make the increased costs for fuel simply preposterous.

On point 8: Nuclear weapons only create a shockwave on earth due to interactions with an atmosphere, and they only produce a ring of shockwave due to interaction with a large flat surface, the ground. Consequently their useful radius is much decreased, save for some hypersonic shrapnel from their own casing. They still release prodigious amounts of light, which means things get hot. However, beyond a few kilometers anything shielded to take the raw heat of the sun should be unaffected. Direct hit thusly the only way to make a shockwave, by transmitting through the station, satellite, or vessel's own structure. Anything light enough to be feasibly launched into space can not be reasonably expected to withstand a direct hit from any sort of nuclear weapon, even relatively small warheads (10-20 kiloton range).

On point 9: Special fragmentary rounds developed for use aboard airlines on earth to prevent depressurization would presumably work equally well in space. These are designed so as to shatter on impact; against human flesh this can be devestating, but against solid metal or thick hardened plastic tends to be useless. Consequently body armor is especially effective against them. This doesn't preclude use of clubs, spears, swords, etc., however. It's generally impractical to armor the whole body, and perhaps some melee in MT space combat could be intersting.

On point 14: Almost completely true, except for in established earth orbits. Tethers with electrically conductive material can interact with the earth's magnetic field to either lower the satellite or station's orbit and produce power, or to raise the satellite or station's orbit at the expense of power. With enough solar cells, this should be a much more efficient way to maintain a station or satellite orbit than frequent resupply. check: http://www.tetherapplications.com/index.htm

A wonderful resource about real life space information, I have found, is the Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/). Includes a wide variety of developed or simply proposed rockets, landers, return vehicles, stations, etc. All likely very much possible, especially considering most were thought up in the 60's, and we have developed so much more since then. The only reason most of this stuff didn't come to exist was costs, of complete development and sometimes just launching; however I imagine that with most moderate sized nations this isn't so much of a problem.

2. That is very possible to an extent, but it would double or triple your expenses.

3. I agree. But due to the extremely prohibitives costs involved I don't recommend for modern tech unless you wish to neglect your earth population and I don't just mean ignoring your miltiary.

8. I disagree but this requires a discussion of cosmic mechanics which I am not all that knowledgeable in. But basically, a nuke in space is just like any other explosive in space. The only thing missing would be sound.

9. Interesting. Got a link for this? If so, I would like to take a look.

14. If you are refferring to the space elevator, I am familiar with the concept and it sounds good on paper. But the space flight community is very divided as to whether this would be practical.

15.

For costs I refer people to the links that are sites made by people actually in the field.
As for the time it takes to get to Mars, we have no means, using modern tech to get there in less than 2 years. Might be able to do it in 13 to 15 months but 45 days would be something that we could do in the future and hence you are speaking about future tech and not modern tech.

Using a NERVA you could reach Mars in about 130 days. And that is 1960/70's technology. And NASA endorses Astronautica, so I'd say they "are" in the field. Those designs were all either proposed or actually flown.

OOC: It depends actually. The cost per kilogram goes down as the payload capability of the booster increases. The American shuttle has a payload of 25 tonnes to LEO(The Buran had a payload of 30 tonnes). A proposed design from the sixities known as ROMBUS (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm) would have had a payload of 450 tonnes; and it was to be resuable.

Nitpickness: It takes 8 minutes for a photon to reach Earth from the Sun, the real hazard to satellites are debris and radiation. You could send people to Jupiters moons if you used a magnetic shield (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04zx.html). And it would take anywhere from 2 years to 45 days (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html) to reach Mars, it all depends on your propulsion method.

Good Links:
http://www.astronautix.com/index.html I spend a lot of time at this site just poking around. The best source of information I've found on spacecraft and boosters.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Another very good site. Lots of stuff about designing a craft(along with information about weapons and drives).

As for the 45 days you speak of, the site you linked to says it requires anti matter which is not modern tech. We know it exists but modern technology can neither create nor collect it.

Using a NERVA you could reach Mars in about 130 days. And that is 1960/70's technology. And NASA endorses Astronautica, so I'd say they "are" in the field. Those designs were all either proposed or actually flown.
Easy guy, I never said they weren't. It doesn't require antimatter or fusion does it?

2. That is very possible to an extent, but it would double or triple your expenses.

3. I agree. But due to the extremely prohibitives costs involved I don't recommend for modern tech unless you wish to neglect your earth population and I don't just mean ignoring your miltiary.

8. I disagree but this requires a discussion of cosmic mechanics which I am not all that knowledgeable in. But basically, a nuke in space is just like any other explosive in space. The only thing missing would be sound.

9. Interesting. Got a link for this? If so, I would like to take a look.

14. If you are refferring to the space elevator, I am familiar with the concept and it sounds good on paper. But the space flight community is very divided as to whether this would be practical.

15.

8. A shockwave, being a wave (other than light, which acts as a wave and a particle) requires mass to propogate through; in a void there is nothing to shock into waving, save the mass of the nuclear weapon itself, and the target if it is directly impacted. It is for this reason that conventional explosives also aren't that useful in space save for direct hits or near direct hits with shrapnel casings.

9. http://www.candrammo.com/Performance.php. A correction of terms; I should have said frangible rounds. Sorry about that.

14. If you'll look at the link I provided it's clearly not a space elevator. It's an actual system that has already been deployed, though admitedly so far only for safe deorbit purposes; I'm not sure of the engineering difficulties to allow it to provide sufficient thrust to maintain orbit. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether#Electrodynamic_tethers) should explain better than I can.

As for the 45 days you speak of, the site you linked to says it requires anti matter which is not modern tech. We know it exists but modern technology can neither create nor collect it.

I would like to point this (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29may_1m.htm) out. Antimatter can and has been produced and stored, however it is admitedly in extremely low quantities, measured in atoms, not pounds. However, the system his site pointed to would be antimatter catalyzed fusion; it would basically use a few atoms of antimatter to start a bit of hydrogen fusing. This is actually a lot closer to reality than you might first think upon hearing the words fusion and antimatter. However, I'd still put it at the earliest as post modern tech.

Easy guy, I never said they weren't. It doesn't require antimatter or fusion does it?

NERVA, an abbreviation for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. They were actually testing these things in Nevada in the 60's. It works purely by fission with nuclear reactors that we've had for several decades now.

http://www.astronautix.com/project/nerva.htm < this gives a complete overview of the history of the NERVA project.

Thodugrund is correct abotu antimatter. You don't need tons of the stuff to power things, that's kind of the point of it. One way you could make an intersteller ramscoop work is to boost it with antimatter. We're building better facilities all of the time that could produce antimatter. We're not at the industrial level yet but then again, nor are we for weekly trips to the moon. - TNE

Thodugrund is correct abotu antimatter. You don't need tons of the stuff to power things, that's kind of the point of it. One way you could make an intersteller ramscoop work is to boost it with antimatter. We're building better facilities all of the time that could produce antimatter. We're not at the industrial level yet but then again, nor are we for weekly trips to the moon. - TNE

Currently antimatter is still by far the most expensive material ever produced, at an estimated 60 Trillion Dollars (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm) per gram. Admittedly even a single gram has the same power as an entire Saturn V, but I still doubt this could be used to overcome the sheer amount of drag produced by having to collect every bit of fuel as you must with an interstellar ramscoop. It doesn't seem practical to me, however I currently cannot find a decent discussion of ramscoop impracticalities.

However, on the antimatter catalyzed fusion, it would supposedly take only micrograms to reach even as far as the Oort cloud, at an estimated cost of $60 million for producing the antimatter required.

However, I still think something like a gas core nuclear thermal rocket (http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html) or nuclear salt water rocket (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw56.html) to be nearer term and more practical.

Whitter: Sorry if I sounded irratated(it wasn't my intension), I should really be getting to bed.

Thodugrund: Yeah, AMCF is really a PMT toy. NERVA however, is simple enough for anyone that can create nuclear fission.

8. A shockwave, being a wave (other than light, which acts as a wave and a particle) requires mass to propogate through; in a void there is nothing to shock into waving, save the mass of the nuclear weapon itself, and the target if it is directly impacted. It is for this reason that conventional explosives also aren't that useful in space save for direct hits or near direct hits with shrapnel casings.

9. http://www.candrammo.com/Performance.php. A correction of terms; I should have said frangible rounds. Sorry about that.

14. If you'll look at the link I provided it's clearly not a space elevator. It's an actual system that has already been deployed, though admitedly so far only for safe deorbit purposes; I'm not sure of the engineering difficulties to allow it to provide sufficient thrust to maintain orbit. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether#Electrodynamic_tethers) should explain better than I can.



I would like to point this (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29may_1m.htm) out. Antimatter can and has been produced and stored, however it is admitedly in extremely low quantities, measured in atoms, not pounds. However, the system his site pointed to would be antimatter catalyzed fusion; it would basically use a few atoms of antimatter to start a bit of hydrogen fusing. This is actually a lot closer to reality than you might first think upon hearing the words fusion and antimatter. However, I'd still put it at the earliest as post modern tech.



NERVA, an abbreviation for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. They were actually testing these things in Nevada in the 60's. It works purely by fission with nuclear reactors that we've had for several decades now.

http://www.astronautix.com/project/nerva.htm < this gives a complete overview of the history of the NERVA project.
8. Perhaps I am using the wrong term here. If there is an explosion, it would have a serious impact on other stuff in the area. Remember we are dealing with nuclear explosions here, which occur all the time on the sun. What I am referring to is that fact in an explosion, you don't just have the shockwave of air but you also have the release of tiny amounts of radioactive particles that move in all directions and extremely high speeds. The particles would behave the same way in space, only difference being that they would move faster cause there is no atmosphere to slow them. Should also remember that even in space, a nuclear explosion would create so much heat, that it would still vaporize anything nearby.

9. I'll accept that. Though it would be better if there was more info.

14. Actually its been patented but was never deployed. Might of been a misread on your part. The space elevator operates the same way.

Antimatter creation, in sufficient amounts would be very expensive, even for the US. Further, we don't have enough information on the creation and use of anti-matter for energy. For all we know, we could end up creating that could sink California into the Pacific. But I would agree it would post modern tech which I would define as anything after the 2020 timeline.

Ok.

Currently antimatter is still by far the most expensive material ever produced, at an estimated 60 Trillion Dollars (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm) per gram. Admittedly even a single gram has the same power as an entire Saturn V, but I still doubt this could be used to overcome the sheer amount of drag produced by having to collect every bit of fuel as you must with an interstellar ramscoop. It doesn't seem practical to me, however I currently cannot find a decent discussion of ramscoop impracticalities.

However, on the antimatter catalyzed fusion, it would supposedly take only micrograms to reach even as far as the Oort cloud, at an estimated cost of $60 million for producing the antimatter required.

However, I still think something like a gas core nuclear thermal rocket (http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html) or [http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw56.html] to be nearer term and more practical.

I agree as regards nuclear rockets. Your second link does not work however.

8. Perhaps I am using the wrong term here. If there is an explosion, it would have a serious impact on other stuff in the area. Remember we are dealing with nuclear explosions here, which occur all the time on the sun. What I am referring to is that fact in an explosion, you don't just have the shockwave of air but you also have the release of tiny amounts of radioactive particles that move in all directions and extremely high speeds. The particles would behave the same way in space, only difference being that they would move faster cause there is no atmosphere to slow them. Should also remember that even in space, a nuclear explosion would create so much heat, that it would still vaporize anything nearby.

9. I'll accept that. Though it would be better if there was more info.

14. Actually its been patented but was never deployed. Might of been a misread on your part. The space elevator operates the same way.

Antimatter creation, in sufficient amounts would be very expensive, even for the US. Further, we don't have enough information on the creation and use of anti-matter for energy. For all we know, we could end up creating that could sink California into the Pacific. But I would agree it would post modern tech which I would define as anything after the 2020 timeline.

Ok.

8. Accord to http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html , which is referenced in the NS guide to nuclear weapons, 50 percent of the energy of a nuclear bomb is released in blast effects, and only 35 percent in heat. I agree, there would still be huge amounts of heat and indeed vaporization at close range, however... it simply wouldn't be as effective in a wide range as it is in atmosphere. That is to say, you couldn't set off a megaton yield nuke halfway between two satellites 30 miles apart and expect them to be smashed. They might be significantly heated, though I doubt at that distance either vaporized or melted, due to the relative size of the satellites, and the fact that the thermal energy would be released in all directions.

14. Quoting from http://www.tetherapplications.com/index.htm :
SEDS-1 was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station as a Delta/GPS secondary payload on March 29, 1993. That sounds like deployed to me. And the space elevator works by physically climbing a tether from a point on the ground to geosynchronus orbit. To say that they work the same is like saying a maglev train is the same as a car going over a paved road. They're similar, a vehicle going over a prepared surface, or tethers used in space, but otherwise quite different.

On antimatter creation, as I have stated in a following post, even a gram of the stuff would cost 60 trillion dollars to produce with current particle accelerator technology. And even at all that expense, that would still only equal the output of a Saturn V rocket. This, while a decent nuclear detonation, is quite survivable; compare the russian N1 rocket, roughly equivalent to the Saturn V in terms of fuel and explosive potential energy. One of these not only failed at launch from Baikonur, but detonated on the ground; however Baikonur was rebuilt and is still in use today. So no island or state sinking anytime soon, at least not with antimatter.

And, second nuclear rocket link above corrected...

8. Accord to http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html , which is referenced in the NS guide to nuclear weapons, 50 percent of the energy of a nuclear bomb is released in blast effects, and only 35 percent in heat. I agree, there would still be huge amounts of heat and indeed vaporization at close range, however... it simply wouldn't be as effective in a wide range as it is in atmosphere. That is to say, you couldn't set off a megaton yield nuke halfway between two satellites 30 miles apart and expect them to be smashed. They might be significantly heated, though I doubt at that distance either vaporized or melted, due to the relative size of the satellites, and the fact that the thermal energy would be released in all directions.

14. Quoting from http://www.tetherapplications.com/index.htm :
SEDS-1 was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station as a Delta/GPS secondary payload on March 29, 1993. That sounds like deployed to me. And the space elevator works by physically climbing a tether from a point on the ground to geosynchronus orbit. To say that they work the same is like saying a maglev train is the same as a car going over a paved road. They're similar, a vehicle going over a prepared surface, or tethers used in space, but otherwise quite different.

On antimatter creation, as I have stated in a following post, even a gram of the stuff would cost 60 trillion dollars to produce with current particle accelerator technology. And even at all that expense, that would still only equal the output of a Saturn V rocket. This, while a decent nuclear detonation, is quite survivable; compare the russian N1 rocket, roughly equivalent to the Saturn V in terms of fuel and explosive potential energy. One of these not only failed at launch from Baikonur, but detonated on the ground; however Baikonur was rebuilt and is still in use today. So no island or state sinking anytime soon, at least not with antimatter.

And, second nuclear rocket link above corrected...


8. I would agree with you on the range of blast. Even in atmospheres, no nuke is strong enough to destroy everything out to 30 miles. Actually I would have to go back and check it. But I still say they can be overheated by the instense and high velocity particles that will sweep through them. Depending on the distance that is.

14. According to this site, http://www.vectorsite.net/tarokt5.html, the first actual attempt at deploying a tether was in 1992. But that effort ended in failure when the tether feed mechanism jammed during deployment.
There was another attempt in 1996. There's more to "deploying" an object into space than just launching it on a shuttle and saying its deployed. You have to release it from the shuttle into actual space, and then you have to test it to see if its practical.
"In 1996, NASA and the ASI tried again. TSS was successfully wound out from the space shuttle to its full 20 kilometer length, and generated 3,500 volts at ampere-level current. However, the tether's insulation was damaged, and an arc flashed between the tether and the shuttle's deployment boom, breaking the tether. This was a disappointment, but the experiment had achieved most of its goals before the mishap. There were also two secondary benefits. First, current levels were twice what had been expected. Second, when the satellite was released, it popped up to an orbit 140 kilometers above the shuttle, demonstrating the use of tethers for orbital insertion."
Ok, you win me over now, cause this is on the same site:
"Despite the troubles with TSS, other tether experiments have been conducted, and most have been successful:" and it proceeds to list other experiments. Including your 1993 SEDS launch. But they redid SEDS in 1994 to see how long it would last with all the debris and space dust. The tether was expected to last days but didn't make it past four. Of course this time SEDS used a 20 KM tether instead of the 500 meter one that had been used in 1993.
In 1996 NASA deployed a 4 KM tether made of "Spectra" fiber, a synthetic polymer used for high-strength fishing line. This time the tether, with a diameter of 2.5 millimeters, and with a new nonconductive tether design based on a hollow braid, was still intact as of last report. But notice they had to shorten in significantly. Going from 20 km to 4 km is huge reduction.
Another experiment in 1999 failed however.
"NASA researchers have conducted studies of a tether system to keep the International Space Station (ISS) in orbit. The 200 kilogram ISS tether "reboost" system would use a tether ten kilometers long. It would use 5 kilowatts of electricity to produce a constant push of 0.5 newtons, about the same amount of force that one would use to pick up a cup on Earth, but still enough to keep the station in orbit."
And the site has other useful info.

I agree with you on the cost of antimatter production. But I would add that building the required partical accelerator would by itself be an expensive undertaking. Note that the Supercollider that was being built in Texas in 80's and early 90's was canceled because its cost had become too prohibitive even the world's sole economic superpower.

A couple of remarks concerning spy satellites.

Part 5 isn’t accurate. With a spy sat in the normal position, around 6000 km , it will only be able to cover 1/6 of the earth's surface. Therefore the position of the satellite matters. Of course you can increase your range by being further from the earth, but notice that your resolution will dwindle with the distance quadrate -- meaning that doubling the distance would give you resolution that's 4 times as bad. Further notice that you will not just be able to see twice as much by doubling your distance. This also means that a geosynch will never make a good spy satellite. Of course, being at this height isn’t without some advantages; your satellite will be able to cover all of earth in less than 24 hours.
One more thing: due to the laws of physics, a spy sat at 6000 km won't be able to get a resolution better than 10 cm2 pr pixel at green light; therefore you can never read a licence plate or characterise the enemy's weapons with a spy sat. This is due to wavelength and can’t be helped by any technology. Of course at lower wave lengths you will be able to see more, but at higher wavelengths (like infrared light) your resolution will get even worse.

Nuclear weapons in space do not act like you state in your article, as brought up by others in this article. Nuclear weapons are highly effective tools of destruction mainly due to the massive shockwave it produces, which can destroy entire buildings kilometers from the actual detonation site. In space, nuclear ordnance is a direct hit weapon, as detonating a nuke in space simply releases light, which most craft are capable of withstanding because the sun produces light. Heat is not produced in a nuclear reaction in space because heat is in its simplest definition, the vibration of atoms, which can not be transfered without medium such as air or solid materials like metal and earth. You will however, be outputing gratuitous amounts of energy, such as visible light, gamma rays, and other electomagnetic waves.

Base line is, if the nuclear weapon does not hit the target, you just made a pretty fireworks show.

Powerthirst reference in there if anyone cares. xD

Uh wow guys. This thread was from like 2005.

Wow... I was just flipping through recent threads. :|

Hate not looking at the post date. >_<