1

It's been over 50 years since nuclear pulse propulsion using shaped charge fission warheads was first proposed. Have there been any significant technological improvements over the last 50 years that would make this concept work better? Do composites promise to reduce structural masses? Have warheads gotten smaller or cleaner?

Schlusstein
  • 2,157
  • 9
  • 30
  • 4
    The biggest impediments to nuclear pulse propulsion aren't technical. They're political and cultural. The largest political impediment is the Outer Space Treaty. Signatory nations cannot send nuclear warheads into space. The cultural impediments are perhaps even larger, particularly since Fukushima. Yes, I know there is no connection (other than using fusion) between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons, but the public at large is unaware. They use the simple equation "nucular = bad". – David Hammen Mar 23 '17 at 13:27
  • @DavidHammen +1 for intentional nucular. – Steve Mar 23 '17 at 14:14
  • @DavidHammen s/fusion/fission/, but yes, all that is quite correct. – Nathan Tuggy Mar 23 '17 at 19:14
  • @NathanTuggy -- Oops, embarrassing! And I know the difference. – David Hammen Mar 23 '17 at 20:40
  • The minimal amount of fission material is given by its crtical mass and may be somewhat reduced by the use neutron reflectors. A smaller warhead is only possible if the ratio of fissioned to unfissioned material is reduced. This reduces the amount of very radioactive fission products but the amount of remaining "dirty" plutonium is the same. – Uwe Mar 27 '17 at 18:55

0 Answers0