Jump to content

Rocket-Ships... Literally Lol...

Spacescifi

By Spacescifi
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Spacescifi

Spacescifi

Posted
Posted

Ya know... it dawned on me that the very reason many of the more risky high powered rocketry ideas have not been tried may work quite well here on the ocean with an actual sea going ship.

 

Let's disregard radiation as a concern and just assume the mission is dire enough to want using extremw nuclear rocketry to propel seagoing vessels.

 

I am talking stuff like the infamous NSWR propelling an ocean ship or better yet speed boats.

Even the nuclear lightbulb and the gas core nuclear rocket would be available to try.

 

I cannot think of any reason for using this other than having infinite reaction mass (sea water) to mix with limited powerful nuclear fuel.

 

Bonus is uber speed boats and faster ocean going vessels than the norm... while radiation is bad we are ignoring that because it's cool to build NSWR propelled ocean vessels.... it is a very kerbal thing to do.

 

Maybe someone has already done it in KSP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Yes... so it's crazy NSWR versus the ocean... I would like to think it makes up for the challenge with raw power.

You would have to excessively overbuild your craft to sustain the pounding of the waves.  Look at those crazy Soviet flying boat designs; unless the ocean was perfectly flat... they were not great.

Take your design and merge it with the Rocket Sub and maybe you wont break it up the first time you use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Look at those crazy Soviet flying boat designs; unless the ocean was perfectly flat... they were not great.

Unless  they are used to quickly deliver several new-clear missiles to the opponent's coast, clean away the coastline defense, and let the LCAC with marines supported by planes to capture the coastline runways, and receive the cargo planes with paratroopers and the bombers with nukes, to obtain a foothold for the heavy forces on the opposite coast of a straight.
In this case they are simply perfect.

(US just didn't need them, because of large tundra territories or British Islets between the coastline and something, while Alaska and Iceland/Greenland are just asking for them.)

Edited by kerbiloid
Inserted "the".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SunlitZelkova

SunlitZelkova

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Ya know... it dawned on me that the very reason many of the more risky high powered rocketry ideas have not been tried may work quite well here on the ocean with an actual sea going ship.

 

Let's disregard radiation as a concern and just assume the mission is dire enough to want using extremw nuclear rocketry to propel seagoing vessels.

 

I am talking stuff like the infamous NSWR propelling an ocean ship or better yet speed boats.

Even the nuclear lightbulb and the gas core nuclear rocket would be available to try.

 

I cannot think of any reason for using this other than having infinite reaction mass (sea water) to mix with limited powerful nuclear fuel.

 

Bonus is uber speed boats and faster ocean going vessels than the norm... while radiation is bad we are ignoring that because it's cool to build NSWR propelled ocean vessels.... it is a very kerbal thing to do.

 

Maybe someone has already done it in KSP?

Have you seen what the ocean on Earth is like?

It isn’t a “wet desert” or “wet sky”, oftentimes navigating it is akin to hiking through a mountain forest. Rockets would not have the finesse to deal with that. You wouldn’t try to climb a forested mountain in a rocket car.

There are also physical limitations on how fast you can push something through the water that preclude use of rockets. If the speeds are going to be the same anyways, might as well use propellers, which do the job fine, have the finesse needed for navigating rough weather, and don’t cost nearly as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

We should be able to give 2 points for a Buckaroo Banzai reference! 

Now he should come out on the other side some meter about the ground as I don't think the ground is perfectly flat. 
Second question how do we do that with bombs to hit deeply buried targets. 
Don't think it will replace tunnels :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Have you seen what the ocean on Earth is like?

It isn’t a “wet desert” or “wet sky”, oftentimes navigating it is akin to hiking through a mountain forest. Rockets would not have the finesse to deal with that. You wouldn’t try to climb a forested mountain in a rocket car.

There are also physical limitations on how fast you can push something through the water that preclude use of rockets. If the speeds are going to be the same anyways, might as well use propellers, which do the job fine, have the finesse needed for navigating rough weather, and don’t cost nearly as much.

This, as you say the problem is sea state, on perfect calm sea you can go +300 km/h, but if you get an wave from tides or an passing ship an ejection seat would be nice as you just ran into an aggressive speed bump at 300 km/h :( and unlike roads or even dirt its much easy to dig into water so unlike car accidents there you probably survive an 200 km/h  off the road and into an field, in an speed boat you prospect would be much worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nuke said:

i have this problem with time travel, if you go back in time a month without changing position, wouldnt you come out in empty space?

This has long been my concern.

For all we know there's been scores of successful time machines - but the inventors failed to make them TimeAndSpace machines... and they go back in time only to discover that here isn't here yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Nuke said:

i have this problem with time travel, if you go back in time a month without changing position, wouldnt you come out in empty space?

Depends on the reference point of the coordinate system.

If use "Universe and me" system, this is a problem.

In the "Me and universe" you will just see the Universe slightly rotated around your position.

Be The Observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuke

Nuke

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Almost 40 years later and it's still hilarious that they built their rocket car out of a Ford Super-Duty.

yea there were a lot of movie/tv cars back then, the producer likely wanted to be unique and that was probibly the only model they hadnt used in a show yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikegarrison

mikegarrison

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Nuke said:

yea there were a lot of movie/tv cars back then, the producer likely wanted to be unique and that was probibly the only model they hadnt used in a show yet.

They deliberately chose a Ford dually as the least likely and most comedic high-tech rocket car they could think of. (I'm not guessing -- most of the creative process of this movie is highly documented.)

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...