Can we just put a nuclear bomb at the bottom of a rocket so that it blasts off and shoot it to space? Thanks.?

Question

That will save a lot of fuel, isn't it?

Answer 1

A little too messy to do from the surface of Earth, but the idea was seriously investigated for propulsion in space. It was called Project Orion.

However, the combination of technical and political problems made it a hard sell, and the nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 made it legally impossible to test.

Answer 2

so that you understand what is happening with a rocket and with a bomb, I will break down the parts.

a rocket, like a bottle rocket has a solid fuel that burns inside the body of the rocket. As it burns, it builds pressure, and that gas pressure is forced through a small opening where it creates additional force to push the rocket so that it flies into the air.

a rocket like what we use to launch satelites, has liquid fuel, and liquid oxidier, can be liquid oxygen or something else. The fuel and oxidizer are forced under tremendous pressure into a combusion chamber where they burn and are expelled at great force through the rocket motor opening. This force lifts the rocket up into orbit.


a bomb consists of two types basically. A shaped charge and a non-shaped charge.

the non-shaped charge expands on a cube root. So if you were 100 feet from a 24 pound bomb when it exploded, the force would be greatly less than if you were 50 feet away from it. Both distances you could possibily survive the blast.

A shaped charge uses the force of the explosion, at perpendicular angles to drive the remainder of the blast in the desired direction. It is somewhat involved so you can read up on that if you are interested.

A nuclear explosion is a lot like the first bomb discussed. It expands in a generally uniform expansion at speeds that are just incredible. (your genetic stick of dynamite expands with about 1 millions torres creating all kinds of microscopic gem stones and other things, where as an atomic or hydrogen bomb explosed on a magnitude far above this melting sand into glass.)

The expansion rate on a nuclear bomb is about 12 miles in 52 seconds which is a hypersonic blast.

A space ship sitting on top of a bomb would vaporize in the heat and expansion of material. The force of the energy release would exceed the structural frame of the rocket to contain the force.

apart from a ceramic tile created by a tile man in england, I do not know of any material that can withstand a nuclear blast. As for the tile, he made a durable tile, marketed it as, a tile that can withstand a nuclear blast and the governments tested it and it did, don't know if you can still buy it, but it does exist.

hope this explains why a rocket can't handle that rapid release of energy.

I always wondered if they would build another air ship like the USS Akron and launch air craft from it as a show of old technology that was just really cool

also, just thought of it, there was a jet that carried a missile not capable of outer space from a surface lauch up to some unheard of ceiling and fired the missile into a suborbital run.

check out the hyperspeed aircraft and the construction of a runway atop the Rockie mountains.....that dates back to the 70's but I have no idea what it would take to build the runway or the jet/rockets

Answer 3

But it would cost a lot in nuclear bombs...
The problem is that a single nuclear blast powerful enough to loft something into orbit is also powerful enough to totally vaporize whatever it is you are trying to launch.
That said, a series of comparatively tiny nuclear explosions was once envisioned as a way to achieve space propulsion. Because of nuclear fallout (and other considerations) the Orion rocket was meant to be assembled in space, with the components brought to orbit using chemical rockets The nuclear propulsion was supposed to be used only in space. See link.

Let's just state that this approach is not presently in the plans of any space agency. Nuclear-electric propulsion, where the nuclear energy is used to produce electricity that then accelerates ionized reaction mass, is probable deemed more feasible. And less dangerous.

Answer 4

Theoretically...it could probably work once your in Space...i.e. to get to somewhere much further along, it is fairly well covered idea in many SF novels. Typically used as the first way to go interstellar/galactic. Basically, allot of small nukes are exploded in a carefully timed way in a some sort of containment field with the "nozzle" pointed "down", the ship accelerates by riding the shock wave of each explosion, timed just right, this would create a near constant rate of acceleration, that in theory would get up to sub-light speeds eventually (say after 4000 nukes)...Alas on the earth the fall out/danger would so out way the effectiveness as to make it completely impossible...unless the earth was already destroyed, and this was being used as a way to lift the few dozen survivors off the planet on their way to Alpha Centuri!

Think about it...the anti nuke crowd freaks out when a satellite is launched with a nuclear battery! Could you even imagine actually blowing up bombs to launch rockets?

Answer 5

I think I heard that several years ago, the US signed a document saying that we would not purposely set off a nuclear explosion in space.
It's too bad really, because a scientist came up the the idea of moving a space ship through space with a series of controlled explosions. these would make the ship go faster and faster, and when the ship reached the halfway point just turn the ship and use those same controlled explosions to slow the ship.

Answer 6

I've seen an example of nukes used as propulsion, a ship flying through space drops one out the back then rides the shock wave. Bet that first push would be a duzzy :)

Answer 7

not really i think.what if the rocket explodes?what if the bomb went away and attacked the surroundings?you wanna save fuel,is it?well,maybe we can use other energies such as solar or hydroelectric to help the rocket in its launching.
am i right?

Answer 8

A rocket motor is a controlled expansion of gasses while a bomb is an uncontrolled expansion of gasses. One is good for rockets, the other not.

Answer 9

Yikes! The rocket would vaporize before moving 1/4". You really knew that, right?

Answer 10

Yes. That was actually studied before the nuclear test ban treaty.

(Oh, someone beat me to it.)