Space launch and asteroid killer / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Space launch and asteroid killer

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Andy

Mon Aug 26 2013, 08:22AM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Hi
I've been thinking about a way to shot down asteroid, below is a prototype design, I was wondering if we could make this a group project.The thing uses thermite the iron oxide and Aliuniumn type, with triple stage compression, it should work or explo... It can't have guidance system at this stage due to local laws. A second use could be to boost UAVs.
A RF heating source would be good

The design will be opensource, with prior art from this site to keep it opensource. Trying to make it so the design when finished, could be built and work.

Any input welcome

Andy

Mon Aug 26 2013, 11:15PM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Rought data, is it accurate? or is it way off

Its $23NZ per 250g, guessing 2kg at 1:3 with AL being $10,$20 Mg ribbon the furnace will cost guesstimate $200, will post back with one stage pictures.

Bjørn

Tue Aug 27 2013, 05:57AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Your topic suggests a scramjet. A scramjet is too difficult for you to design and fabricate. The drawing suggests a simple form of ramjet so you seem to be confused about the whole concept, that is not a great start.

Take ten steps back and start with the simplest type of solid fuel subsonic ramjet and see if you can get that to work and try to avoid talking about arrays of hypersonic guided missiles filled with poison.

Patrick

Wed Aug 28 2013, 04:12AM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

back to the asteroid killing... above all else -- early detection is vital.

I favor the use of nuclear weapons. At a distance the thermal ablation from the surface would not pulverize the asteroid but propel it, so avoiding the earth... (after all--only a fool would try to obliterate an asteroid.) 10 or 15 detonations, on a 30 year schedule could alter the course of even a large asteroid.

The weapon yield and distance to surface could be used to taylor the force to match the strength of the target asteroid, so even weak "rubble piles" could be gently acted on (over 40-50 years) so as not to "shotgun them" into the earth and make things worse.

totally unmanned, no human presence needed.

it should be noted that the physics and calculus favor forces, (even smaller forces) acting on a body early, rather than later. so yield and frequency of dentation should favor the 20-30 year mark and less so the 10-20 year marks. But radar and optical observation (and maybe surviving satellites sent to orbit the body) could all be used to analyze each attempt, to optimize the next nuclear shot, you know, so as not to overdo it.

im con on ideas like the "gravity tractor". though elegant, the worlds idiot politicians will never let us have enough time (centuries) to make it work... detection more than several decades out is problematic anyway, and we humans are known to procrastinate. (no US social security jokes please)

Andy

Wed Aug 28 2013, 04:43AM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Hi Patrick
A kinetic shell, at high velocity will be like a nuke, say a design that is about the size of a car, that can reach escape velocity before a vacuum rocket takes over would have enough speed to almost escape the solar system if the 90% fuel for the payload.
Sending one crashing into it every hour you could move a asteroid that the telescopes missed.
???

Patrick

Wed Aug 28 2013, 04:49AM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

I do like the potato-gun like ideas, just not for asteroids. we humans are very limited in what we know about asteroids and cometary bodies. And even more limited in what we can reliably and regularly put in orbit. (we Americans and Russians even kill our own people on occasion)

We could pulverize a solar body and make things worse. or spend a lot of time, energy and resources hitting it, but not change its orbital path enough. see, this is whats so nice about nuclear weapons, there is enough knowledge among the US, Russia, France, Britain and a few others to build a series of weapons for planetary protection. And a nuclear warhead has high energy density, but still physically cheap, small and easy to accelerate far and fast, like the Pluto probe "New Horizons" which was meant to be light weight (1050 lbs) for duration of mission concerns.

upping 50 or so weapons, in the 100, 200, 400 and 800 megaton yield range would leave options, to be implemented long after launch, while still in transit. If only 15 weapons were needed the remaining 35 would be thrown into deep space or Jupiter.

As for Bjorns concerns, we forum members are already (for sure) being monitored by the NSA, so...

BjÃ¸rn wrote ...

... and try to avoid talking about arrays of hypersonic guided missiles filled with poison.

Thomas W

Wed Aug 28 2013, 06:55PM

Registered Member #3324 Joined: Sun Oct 17 2010, 06:57PM
Location:
Posts: 1276

Id be more in favor of slowing it down and bringing it into orbit for mining / building a giant space-station on it or a spacelift.

Andy

Wed Aug 28 2013, 10:36PM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Hi __=|(:3)-|--{__
If you could bring the cost of space flight down to the $1000 /pound/kg that would be doable. Awhile ago US was working on a march 25 plane, but at that speed I think they had problems with steering, it would have opened up space though :(

Patrick

Thu Aug 29 2013, 04:11AM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

NASA doesn't want to much access to space though, not enough to diminish their own significance. I think SpaceX and people like Burt Rutan maybe our only hope for real significant civilian access to space.

Thank fully SpaceX and a few others are partnering with NASA, so the rest of the private sector wont have to.

Thomas W

Thu Aug 29 2013, 11:28AM

Registered Member #3324 Joined: Sun Oct 17 2010, 06:57PM
Location:
Posts: 1276

Andy wrote ...

Hi __=|(:3)-|--{__
If you could bring the cost of space flight down to the $1000 /pound/kg that would be doable. Awhile ago US was working on a march 25 plane, but at that speed I think they had problems with steering, it would have opened up space though :(

once the mining gear would be up there, getting stuff back wouldnt be as much as a problem id think, really id would just be taking the most pure ore deposit parts (smaller chunks) and then throwing it at the earth with right timing so it lands in a desart and not at a city ( not a bad war tactic however )

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob