Project Orion: A discussion of Science and Science Fiction

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

No, that is not true.

No orbital-class engine can "survive the heat" of active combustion, even with low-energy chemical combustion like kerolox or hypergols. That's why all orbital-class liquid-fueled engines are regeneratively cooled.

A metallic hydrogen engine would require auxiliary propellant, not to "water it down", but to provide remass. The release of energy does not provide impulse without a means of transferring momentum. The same is true for pulsed-charge Orion designs; they require reaction mass in the form of powdered tungsten. A metallic hydrogen Orion would require the same, but there would be no reason to make a metallic hydrogen bomb Orion, both because (a) metallic hydrogen is not nearly as energetic as a thermonuclear warhead, and (b) if you have access to metallic hydrogen, you simply use it in an ordinary engine with a liquid remass like anhydrous ammonia.

The pusher-plate design has nothing to do with surviving heat. It has to do with an inability to control nuclear explosions.

That is nothing at all like what a pulse jet is. A pulse jet is simply a jet engine which uses pulsed combustion rather than continuous combustion. It was first used in combat in World War II with the V-1 flying bomb and it has never been used since because turbojets are more efficient.

All of this worrying over launching "an orion" and nozzle size is stuff and nonsense. The nozzle can be as big or as small as you want it to be. 

No, that is not true. The heat is carried away by the escaping propellant, and any heat that is transferred to the nozzle is carried back into the propellant via regenerative cooling.

Making a nozzle thicker won't keep it from melting. Making it thicker will, in fact, make the heat management problem worse.

Nope, you do not need to do that.

You simply use regenerative cooling, like every modern liquid-fueled orbital-class rocket engine in existence today.

A rocket engine operates in a steady-state mode with a constant chamber temperature. If you have a super-material with a melting point higher than the temperature of combustion, then it doesn't matter how long you operate it for; it won't melt and you won't need to stop and let it cool off. However, you will still need regenerative cooling somewhere in the cycle or the rocket engine will transfer that heat to other parts of your ship and melt them, too.

There is no limit to the heat management capabilities of regenerative cooling, and there is no reason to think that future technology with the capacity to build SSTOs would somehow forget what regenerative cooling is.

If you want to broil everyone in the ship, sure.

 

Well yeah... I forgot about that that!

I guess instead of poking holes in spaceships lasers would literally turn them into ovens cooking the crew alive... if the hull was made of some super material that did not melt easily.

That's assuming liquid storage tanks did not leak and or combust depending on the chemical.... blowing up the entire ship.

 

So coincidentally such a scifi ship would begin to have a glowing hull as it was zapped silly but still intact. Until it suddenly explodes.

 

Regarding regenerative cooling it said the heat goes back into the propellant, which is either feed into the combustion chamber or a special gas generator.

 

I presune for OP purposes simply feeding the heated propellant back into the combustion chamber would be ideal... since I really don't know what gas generators have to do with regenerative cooling.

[Scotius]

I believe I solved the mystery. Spacescifi is... a real life Megumin!!!

Behold the glory of ultimate magic!!!

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

Regarding regenerative cooling it said the heat goes back into the propellant, which is either feed into the combustion chamber or a special gas generator.

I presune for OP purposes simply feeding the heated propellant back into the combustion chamber would be ideal... since I really don't know what gas generators have to do with regenerative cooling.

This has to do with power cycles, which are probably beyond the scope of what you are trying to figure out here. The predominant challenge for any orbital-class rocket engine is not the combustion or the choice of propellant or the cooling system, but the question of how to force propellant out of the tanks and into the thrust chamber at a high enough pressure that the pressure in the thrust chamber doesn't push back out into the tanks. Unless you have immensely high pressure in your tanks, you will need a turbopump of some kind.

For expander-cycle engines, where the heat generated by the engine is used to directly drive the turbopump, the straightforward approach is to run a little cryogenic propellant into the coolant loop and allow it to emerge in an auxiliary chamber where the heated propellant can expand into a gas. That escaping gas can then turn a turbine, which turns the turbopump, which pumps the propellant.

You can do regenerative cooling with any propellant, of course, but an expander-cycle engine will require a cryogenic propellant, which you probably don't want for your SSTO.

[Codraroll]

Long story short: If you want a ship to do what ordinary technology cannot do, don't try to do it with ordinary technology. Invent something vague and fancy-sounding that works without explaining how, or just handwave it.

Or both: Introducing the Palm-and-Five-Fingers Cyclical Motion Engine. The P5F-CME is a super-efficient technology that allows practical SSTO capabilities and continuous acceleration for a very long time, without using a lot of reaction mass. That's the entire explanation of how it works.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Codraroll

[Spacescifi]

46 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Long story short: If you want a ship to do what ordinary technology cannot do, don't try to do it with ordinary technology. Invent something vague and fancy-sounding that works without explaining how, or just handwave it.

Or both: Introducing the Palm-and-Five-Fingers Cyclical Motion Engine. The P5F-CME is a super-efficient technology that allows practical SSTO capabilities and continuous acceleration for a very long time, without using a lot of reaction mass. That's the entire explanation of how it works.

 

OP tech that just works too well tends to break settings so much that arbritrary limits must be imposed to 'unbreak' them.

 

Plus I just like the look of pusher plate spacecraft, and think combining the rocket and pusher plate tech is seldom seen in popular scifi.

 

So let's debate two shall we? To end the debate once and for all.

 

I just presumed project orion enhanced with futuristic bombs would have superior delta V and TWR to a futurstic rocket  that used the same fuel source.

Is that not true?

I mean when you compare NSWR to project orion I do not think NSWR beats orion in the mileage department.

And that is the closest appriximation we have of arguing torchship versus project orion.

Advanced models in may not use the same fuels, but the end motion result should be the similar, whether even if it is an antimatter orion versus an antimatter rocket.

It could also be said that apart from pusher plate breakdown, the orion system is less prone to things going horribly wrong... especially when dealing with very high powered fuels like MH or when using fusion reactions.

 

I just presume a rocket is trying to contain chaos in a bottle, whereas external pulse propulsion just lets chaos rip outside, so barring an outer force blowing up the ship itself, it should never have engine problems that rockets are prone to have.

With all due respect, we can predict some of the issues that may come up with constant firing of an advanced rocket engine, but whatever they are, I reckon a pusher plate is harder to break, and may be easier to fix with spare parts too.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Spacescifi

[Codraroll]

7 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I just presumed project orion enhanced with futuristic bombs would have superior delta V and TWR to a futurstic rocket  that used the same fuel source.

Is that not true?

Not in the slightest. A bomb sends energy in every spherical direction, and the ship only gets to take advantage of the "ray" that hits its pusher plate. The rest dissipates uselessly to the sides and behind and diagonally and every other direction you can think of. A rocket engine directs all the energy in the desired direction, since the nozzle surrounds the combustion process and ensures the energy only has one way to travel - very roughly speaking. I believe you have been told this many, many times already.

[Spacescifi]

35 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Not in the slightest. A bomb sends energy in every spherical direction, and the ship only gets to take advantage of the "ray" that hits its pusher plate. The rest dissipates uselessly to the sides and behind and diagonally and every other direction you can think of. A rocket engine directs all the energy in the desired direction, since the nozzle surrounds the combustion process and ensures the energy only has one way to travel - very roughly speaking. I believe you have been told this many, many times already.

 

Still... the fact that we know how to build an orion and that a NSWR has a lot more that could go wrong in flight speaks for itself.

Just as any advanced rocket will be a more complex machine than external pulse propulsion.

It's high performance (advanced rocket) vs good enough (advanced externsl pulse propulsion).

Edited December 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[insert_name]

18 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Still... the fact that we know how to build an orion and that a NSWR has a lot more that could go wrong in flight speaks for itself.

Is that a fact, I somehow doubt that setting off a bunch of nukes  is less likely to go wrong than a saltwater reactor that shoots its fuel out the back end? Considering how little data we have regarding the operation of these types of vehicles I'm not not sure anyone can say for certain which is more reliable

[Spacescifi]

16 minutes ago, insert_name said:

Is that a fact, I somehow doubt that setting off a bunch of nukes  is less likely to go wrong than a saltwater reactor that shoots its fuel out the back end? Considering how little data we have regarding the operation of these types of vehicles I'm not not sure anyone can say for certain which is more reliable

 

The NSWR rocket has a reaction going on that if it goes wonky can literally blow the ship up like a nuke.

 

Bombs go off only when you set them off.

 

Even chemical rockets blow up at times.

 

Rockets are merely controlled flow bombs.

 

The more advanced the more complex it must be. .. the rocket.

 

But you are right in that we won't know for sure till we build and test them.

 

Until then we have scifi to test the ideas we cannot yet do.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[sevenperforce]

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

5 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Long story short: If you want a ship to do what ordinary technology cannot do, don't try to do it with ordinary technology. Invent something vague and fancy-sounding that works without explaining how, or just handwave it.

OP tech that just works too well tends to break settings so much that arbritrary limits must be imposed to 'unbreak' them.

Or your handwavium can be invoked on both ends: it can provide the "overpowered" characteristics and also provide their limits.

For example, consider the beautiful Firefly-Class transport, the Serenity.

Its main powerplant is the big thing in the back. It has extremely high specific impulse and boasts a respectable amount of thrust, enough to enable the ship to traverse the Verse quite quickly in quasi-Brachistochrone trajectories. It is, in essence, a torchship.

Now, if such a drive were to exist, it would absolutely remove any need for the ship's twin VTOL engines, because everything in the series would be an instant tailsitter.

But the writers wanted it to have cool twin VTOL engines anyway. So they avoid this problem by postulating that the engine really only works in a vacuum. When fired in space, the engine produces a pretty, ethereal glow:

But firing it in the atmosphere?

Well, that's a different story. Specifically, a story with a very big KABOOM.

In the show, firing the main powerplant in-atmo produces a catalytic reaction with atmospheric oxygen which results in a tremendous, sky-wrenching, city-flattening firestorm-like explosion:

And of course this also seriously damages the engine compressor coil, so you wouldn't ordinarily do this unless you were trying to escape a bunch of cannibalistic space pirates (which is what they were doing in this situation).

What is a compressor coil? No one knows. What is a catalytic reaction with oxygen? Again, no one knows. It's just handwavium, just like the engine itself. But that's fine. The authors wanted it to look a certain way, and so that's how they made it look.

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Plus I just like the look of pusher plate spacecraft, and think combining the rocket and pusher plate tech is seldom seen in popular scifi.

Then by all means, combine rocket engines and a pusher plate. The writers of Firefly wanted to make a spaceship that looked like a lightning bug, and so they did. You can do the same. Just make it work the way you want it to, but don't expect hard science to fill in the gaps.

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

So let's debate two shall we? To end the debate once and for all.

I just presumed project orion enhanced with futuristic bombs would have superior delta V and TWR to a futurstic rocket  that used the same fuel source.

Is that not true?

That is not remotely true.

Any vehicle which uses pulsed blasts for propulsion (let alone pulsed blasts with a ridiculously heavy and inefficient pusher plate) will have inferior dV and inferior TW in comparison to a vehicle which uses a continuously-burning engine with the same fuel. 

Let me say that again just so there is no confusion.

Given any energy source, a controlled continuous-thrust engine will have far greater thrust and impulse than a pulsed-blast engine.

This is a fundamental fact of reaction physics. It's just how things works.

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

I mean when you compare NSWR to project orion I do not think NSWR beats orion in the mileage department.

A nuclear saltwater rocket harnesses thermal-neutron criticality. Orion harnesses prompt-neutron criticality. The two have virtually nothing in common. It is like comparing a fuel-air explosive with a coal-burning stove and saying "well they're both the same because they're both burning hydrocarbons with air." 

_{(Technically a NSWR harnesses water as a reaction mass, boiled by thermal-neutron criticality, while Orion harnesses tungsten as a reaction mass, vaporized by a thermonuclear explosions that is initiated by prompt-neutron criticality. But that's beside the point.)}

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Advanced models in may not use the same fuels, but the end motion result should be the similar, whether even if it is an antimatter orion versus an antimatter rocket.

This is a perfect example of why you are incorrect. An antimatter orion would be horribly wasteful and useless in comparison to an antimatter rocket. Given any energy source, a pusher-plate arrangement will always have less thrust and less impulse.

Now if you want a dual-thrust-axis spacecraft with VTOL rockets and a pusher plate, then by all means create one, and handwave the reason why. But don't expect science to back you up.

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

It could also be said that apart from pusher plate breakdown, the orion system is less prone to things going horribly wrong... especially when dealing with very high powered fuels like MH or when using fusion reactions.

The "orion system" is a massive accident waiting to happen. It is a horrible, horrible idea. It is incredibly hazardous and incredibly wasteful. There is absolutely no reason to use a system like orion unless you are stuck with current-tech thermonuclear weapons as your only propellant choice.

Edited December 6, 2021 by sevenperforce
well actually

[Shpaget]

In fiction, stuff will go wrong exactly as often as the writer wants it. No more, no less.

[sevenperforce]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Still... the fact that we know how to build an orion and that a NSWR has a lot more that could go wrong in flight speaks for itself.

Just as any advanced rocket will be a more complex machine than external pulse propulsion.

Again, Orion and NSWR are not remotely comparable.

If you have access to an energy source like pure fusion, antimatter, or metallic hydrogen, it is TRIVIAL to build a very simple, bulletproof, impossible-to-mess-up engine. And you won't have to bother with making it "advanced" because your energy source is so OP that you don't need it to operate at the limits of its capabilities.

If you want to have your science fiction spaceship powered by a pusher-plate spacecraft, then just propose a future where humans either (a) evolve immunity to radiation poisoning, or (b) invent super-lightweight radioactive shielding. And propose that massive uranium deposits are discovered, making nuclear charge propulsion cheaper than even a solid-fueled rocket. Then, boom (no pun intended), you've got your reason for a pusher-plate SSTO.  

[Gargamel]

Thanks @sevenperforce, I know what I’m binging again this weekend. 

[Spacescifi]

37 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Again, Orion and NSWR are not remotely comparable.

If you have access to an energy source like pure fusion, antimatter, or metallic hydrogen, it is TRIVIAL to build a very simple, bulletproof, impossible-to-mess-up engine. And you won't have to bother with making it "advanced" because your energy source is so OP that you don't need it to operate at the limits of its capabilities.

If you want to have your science fiction spaceship powered by a pusher-plate spacecraft, then just propose a future where humans either (a) evolve immunity to radiation poisoning, or (b) invent super-lightweight radioactive shielding. And propose that massive uranium deposits are discovered, making nuclear charge propulsion cheaper than even a solid-fueled rocket. Then, boom (no pun intended), you've got your reason for a pusher-plate SSTO.  

 

Originally I just wanted a classic scifi SSTO that could have adventures on it's own without a second stage.

Come to think of it Sevenperforce, I prefer to limuit my handwavium to low varieties and numbers.

I could honestly improve even modern spacecraft with a fictional metal hull that has a ridiculously high melting point... meaning the crew would get broiled alive with a glowing hull long before the hull actually melted.

Let's say the stuff is as dense as tungsten but has a much higher melying point, enough that we could fly a metallic hydrogen rocket purely with liquid metallic hydrogen combustion.

Too bad they don't have that. Even so I think we could actually make SSTO's right now if only we had engines with much higher melting points.

Because we can design engines to take advantage of that right? Higher delta v and thrust all from running hotter?

 

Who knows... maybe we could even get a sustained fusion reaction without uber magnetic fields too?

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[sevenperforce]

2 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Let's say the stuff is as dense as tungsten but has a much higher melying point, enough that we could fly a metallic hydrogen rocket purely with liquid metallic hydrogen combustion.

Too bad they don't have that. Even so I think we could actually make SSTO L's righg now if only we had engines with much higher melting points.

Because we can design engines to take advantage of that right? Higher delta v and thrust all from running hotter?

No, the melting point of materials is not a limiting factor for any modern rocket engine.

Like I said before, there is really no realistic limit to the capacity of regenerative cooling. Modern orbital-class rocket engines run at temperatures far, far greater than the melting point of their constituent materials.

For example, the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (that is going on SLS, someday) has a chamber combustion temperature of 3,300°C. Not only is that higher than the melting point of most metals, it is higher than the boiling point of most metals. The RS-25 combustion chamber is made of Inconel-718, which melts at 1,430°C, and it is lined with a copper-silver-zirconium alloy which melts at only 500°C.

And yet, it persists.

That is the power of regenerative cooling. Temperature is never, ever a problem.

[Spacescifi]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

No, the melting point of materials is not a limiting factor for any modern rocket engine.

Like I said before, there is really no realistic limit to the capacity of regenerative cooling. Modern orbital-class rocket engines run at temperatures far, far greater than the melting point of their constituent materials.

For example, the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (that is going on SLS, someday) has a chamber combustion temperature of 3,300°C. Not only is that higher than the melting point of most metals, it is higher than the boiling point of most metals. The RS-25 combustion chamber is made of Inconel-718, which melts at 1,430°C, and it is lined with a copper-silver-zirconium alloy which melts at only 500°C.

And yet, it persists.

That is the power of regenerative cooling. Temperature is never, ever a problem.

 

Then why does scott manley say you cannot burn pure metallic hydrogen without mixing it with tamer propellants, lest you melt your engine?

He must assume there are limits....

[Gargamel]

9 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Originally I just wanted a classic scifi SSTO that could have adventures on it's own without a second stage

The Rocinante in the Expanse is a Torchship capable of atmospheric operations and landings.  There’s no reason to get specific about systems when a single fictional torch drive will do the trick.  
 

In fact, personally, I prefer it when authors give me a hunk of sci fi to digest and instead of trying to explain it, they just make me deal with it.    As long as something isn’t obviously implausible or incorrect, the suspension of disbelief is a powerful tool to wield.    Stick to the KISS method of sci fi devices.   

[Spacescifi]

49 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

The Rocinante in the Expanse is a Torchship capable of atmospheric operations and landings.  There’s no reason to get specific about systems when a single fictional torch drive will do the trick.  
 

In fact, personally, I prefer it when authors give me a hunk of sci fi to digest and instead of trying to explain it, they just make me deal with it.    As long as something isn’t obviously implausible or incorrect, the suspension of disbelief is a powerful tool to wield.    Stick to the KISS method of sci fi devices.   

 

 

You are right... I just think matters through to how much the tech can be pushed to the limit.

Which I often find scary... because the limit is...  whatever. Undefined. Unknown.

 

And I do not like unknowns. Ever.

 

I prefer to have some basis. Something to build upon, something that is not royally overpowered that cannot be countered.

One totally made up drive I just came up with is this:

Anti-Inertia drive: If inertia is a resistance to a change in momentum, this drive lowers that at a constant acceleration rate equal to and in the same direction as your main rocket engine.

In other words, you start off with rockets, but once you activate the anti-inertia drive field you will CONTINUE accelerating in a straight line even at the same rate as you were after cutting off the rocket engines.

 

To change course you shut off the field and just point your ship in another direction and thrust your rocket engine to 'kickstart' your anti-inertia drive again where you wish to go.

 

Best part is you do not need uber rockets for this... since the anti-inertia drive does most of the work, so any normal chemical rocket could 'kickstart' the process.

Refueling still matters.... just less.

 

With a drive like this we could reach mars at 1g travel times or anywhere else with propellant to spare!

 

In this case the counter is obvious... other vessels with the same drive field and missiles that also have it.

 

Just imagine the pure insanity a sprint missile could do with an anti-inertia field drive fitted to it.

 

100g probe around the solar system. Get to mars in a week or less probably lol.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[razark]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

Originally I just wanted a classic scifi SSTO that could have adventures on it's own without a second stage.

Come to think of it Sevenperforce, I prefer to limuit my handwavium to low varieties and numbers.

Godsdamnit, you can't have it both ways.

Either tell your story and BS through what doesn't fit, or tell a different story that fits what works.  Pick one and stop trying to make so what ain't so.

[Spacescifi]

13 minutes ago, razark said:

Godsdamnit, you can't have it both ways.

Either tell your story and BS through what doesn't fit, or tell a different story that fits what works.  Pick one and stop trying to make so what ain't so.

 

I do not have a problem with handwavium... I just believe less is more when it comes to handwavium.

As much as I like star trek, I think they could probably fill pages with handwavium as much as they have.

Less handwavium means solutions to problems are more rooted in reality.... at least with regard to what you do not use handwavium on.

 

Star Trek has so much handwavium that often one watching the show can decide easier ways of solving problems than characters actually do.

 

Whereas I prefer in writing fiction for characters to make logicallly the best choice available to them. I would expect as much of real people no less.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[razark]

30 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

As much as I like star trek, I think they could probably fill pages with handwavium as much as they have.

Could, and have.  For decades.

And there's a hell of a lot of Star Trek fans that know its "science" is complete BS, but still love it for the stories it tells.

There's a lot of people that love hard sci-fi that sticks almost entirely to known, workable science with stories woven around it.

 

But compare either one to Star Wars, and "handwaved BS that doesn't get in the way of telling the story, or even explained to any depth" kicks both their behinds. 

Tell the story YOU want to tell in a way that makes the story work, or give up on the idea of telling any story.

 

36 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Whereas I prefer in writing fiction for characters to make logicallly the best choice available to them.

Guess what?  As the writer, you get to determine what choices are available to the characters, real science be damned.  If the choices you want to make don't fit with established science, then so be it.  That's just the way it is in your storyworld.

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

 

I prefer to have some basis. Something to build upon, something that is not royally overpowered that cannot be countered.

That’s it.     That’s where you need to stop.    Don’t take your logic train any further.  
 

Take your nugget, your seed, your basis for your sci fi device and leave it there.   Expand upon its abilities, but stay away from specifics.   State something works just because it will work.     This isn’t handhavium, this is sticking to the basics without contradicting yourself (or physics) and leaving the reader to fill in the details if they choose.   
 

Some of the greatest machines in sci fi worked because there wasn’t much detail about them.    The Epstein drives in the Expanse as mentioned.   The “Machine” in Contact.   The ornithopters in Dune. 
 

These all work because they’re given a seed of truth band reality, and left at that.    They work just because they do.    The details are left to the reader to make the possible logic jumps from the base idea to the details to make it happen, and in doing so, they say to themselves “Ok, yeah, there’s a possibility of that working.”     If you give the nitty gritty details of something, and make one tiny mistake, either in theory or execution, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. 
 

 

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Take your nugget, your seed, your basis for your sci fi device and leave it there.   Expand upon its abilities, but stay away from specifics.

If Jules Verne could join the forum...

[Gargamel]

15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If Jules Verne could join the forum...

He wasn’t far off from reality a century before it’s time.   The Nautilus?    It was a nuclear sub.    HG Wells’ Time Machine?  He described nuclear war.    Both these guys were talking about technologies before the physics even existed to describe them theoretically, let alone in specific.   And they made it work because they didn’t get into much detail and didn’t disagree with physics ( ok maybe a bit in Well’s case.... but you had to know from the title there be a bit of bending of the rules.). 
 

20k leagues was one of my favorite books as a kid, I’d love for him to join the forum.   He’d probably be really interested in the project HARP thread.  

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

He wasn’t far off from reality a century before it’s time.   The Nautilus?    It was a nuclear sub.    

I mean that every his book is full of attempts to describe arythmetically everything he writes about, and of as many exhibition artifacts and encyclopedic articles as he can.

Actually, I believe Jules Verne was an enthusiastic graphoman rather than a real writer, unlike, say, HGW, whose books are usually balanced in this sense.

I mean, if JV could join this forum, he would be puzzled by your advice.

15 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

20k leagues was one of my favorite books as a kid, I’d love for him to join the forum.

As it was mine, but that's why I can remember a whole heap of useless calculations and wikifacts from it.