Bubbles_glow

≡ The Advantages of Space ≡

 
Corner_fold
  • Somewhere Else on the Internet
  • You Might Be Interested to Know
  • On the Other Hand
  • Illustration
Space_catalog
 
Flowchart_grey_24

The Advantages of Space

Dr. Freeman Dyson
Department of Physics
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 08540


Dear Dr. Dyson,

About a week ago I read Kenneth Brower's biography of you and your son and found myself highly interested in your ideas. I doubt that Dyson Spheres will be constructed in my lifetime by creatures in this biosphere, but perhaps some of us could set up something on asteroids or comets in a couple of decades . . .

As I see it, there are currently three possible environments for settlement: the sea, Antarctica, and Space, in ascending order of preference. Building ocean settlements strikes me as risky because we would probably be close enough to land to be controlled by various overwater interests. We're still at the bottom of a gravity well, down which fall canisters of radioactive wastes, industrial byproducts and the effluvium of toilets. It seems unfortunate to have to trust in other people to keep our environment uncontaminated what that trust has been so far without ground (dry or otherwise). Antarctica seems an order of magnitude better. It's remote; we could get out of sight of military bases pretty quickly and settle down with penguins or springtails. We certainly wouldn't have a gravity well problem on one of the 16,000 foot mountains. Antarctica would be a perfect place to set up a space launch site without strings. (And if we can fuel up with ice . . .) There's even air around to play with; it would be a good jumping-off place. On the other hand, if we didn't jump off within a century or so we'd probably be jumped on by nations looking for new material to exploit. Antarctica would also be rather dull compared to space. I won't be so condescending as to tell you what I think the advantages of space are; you've probably thought of it more than I have.

So . . .

Are we working on another version of Orion? Do you have any new plans? (Brower sort of left all that hanging.) What about finances, or the bone-calcium problem? Have you planned out any directions for the society up there, or would you leave it to evolve by itself?

You see, Dr. Dyson, I'd really like to come along. And I have a couple of friends who might be interested. None of us are brilliant physics or engineering minds (I'm eighteen, puttering with differential equations and may stop there as far as math is concerned), but I wouldn't say we're worthless either. What sort of preparation would you suggest; how can we help make the whole thing happen?


Springtail Penguins Freeman_dyson Orion_blastoff2 Dysnsphr_square Neemo9_aquarius
 
Orion_blastoff2

Project Orion: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth
by Michael Flora

Project Orion was a space vehicle propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the vehicle (1). The seeming absurdity of this idea is one of the reasons why Orion failed; yet, many prominent physicists worked on the concept and were convinced that it could be made practical. Since atomic bombs are discrete entities, the system had to operate in a pulsed rather than a continuous mode. It is similar in this respect to an automobile engine, in which the peak combustion temperatures far exceed the melting points of the cylinders and pistons. The engine remains intact because the period of peak temperature is brief compared to the combustion cycle period.

Unfortunately, the Orion concept is inherently “dirty” because it uses fission fuel. It is also inefficient; this is acceptable only because of the vast amounts of energy available. A much better alternative is fusion, since a fusion rocket would not leave a wake of heavy radioactive ions. The British Interplanetary Society’s Daedalus project (61) was a study of an unmanned interstellar probe. It would have been driven by fusion “microexplosions” caused by irradiating fuel pellets with electron beams at pulse rates up to 250 Hz, in a magnetic “combustion chamber”. Confinement and shaping of the plasma with a magnetic field would make Daedalus vastly more efficient than Orion. Daedalus would work just as well in the solar system as between the stars, and one can imagine that in 75 to 100 years fusion freighters will be sailing regularly between the planets. An important point is that no one has yet produced controlled fusion energy with electron beams or anything else, while the technology required to build an Orion-type spaceship has existed for over thirty years. Nuclear propulsion will get into space eventually. Orion might be the device that makes possible human occupation and economic exploitation of the solar system.