Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear photonic rocket

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear photonic rocket

THis is all original research and speculation -- Unsigned.

• Keep. It seems pretty reasonable to me. The maths looks correct, where it refers to existing technologies it is correct. I see this as reasonable material in an encyclopedia entry. Do you have any evidence that it is original research rather than original material about a known topic? njh 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:V. "Original material about a known topic" does not comply with the policy on verifiability, which says that articles should "refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher". Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you can list which facts are unverifiable? When I read through the article it certainly contains lots of statements such as 'other particles are baryons', or 'A nuclear reactor generates 5 times more heat than electricity'. These statements seem quite verifiable to me (by looking at the page on baryons or fission reactor respectively). Are you just asking for each line to have a link to an article that details the fact? This seems quite doable, and a weak reason for deletion.

Or, do you mean the general concept of using photons to accelerate a spaceship is unverifiable? Or that we can't build nuclear reactors? I really don't understand what you mean by unverifiable here - we're not talking about introducing some new physics, merely detailing the calculations giving upper limits on a plausible technology.njh 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP not a crystal ball, overuse of the word "would" in this article. Ruby 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. Highly interesting, unfortunately completely unsourced. (Caveat: If some references appear in this in the next 24 hours I vote keep. If not, then well the price of wiki is eternal vigilance, isn't it.) - Randwicked Alex B

I believe I've met your deadline. I'm curious, though; If I'd added references after 24 hours, would you still vote delete? If so, why? Bryan 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, because I'm fickle. A feel a sense of urgency helps in editing, though. - Randwicked Alex B 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of what I find comes right back to Wiki [1]. Does it exist? If not, is it a widely accepted theory? If someone can provide legitimate sources and makes a good case for the subject, I might reconsider. PJM 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• (Now no vote.) Delete as original research, lacking credibility as well as sources. For example, why bother converting the reactor power into electricity (with the attendant reduction in efficiency) if, as the article admits, you can just pipe out the coolant and use the thermal radiation directly? Another point is that at white-hot temperatures the glowing filament (tungsten or graphite) would evaporate and form a blackening deposit on any containment vessel or reflecting surface - which would then reduce the reflectance progressively to zero. Without proper argument and sources this article just doesn't ring true. It also lacks of any mention of the "nuclear photonic" rocket's principal competitor (the ion engine), which is a proven technology. Sliggy 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not original research; this is an article about blue-sky thought experiments that were popular among physicists and lay readers of science magazines in the 1950's and 1960's. Folks like Freeman Dyson used to turn these sorts of ideas out by the metric tonne. Agree that article is in dire need of references. -Ikkyu2 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  An interesting point, but where is the evidence for this interpretation? I agree there were (and are) thought experiments, such the solar sail, nuclear thermal rocket etc.. With references, OK, I could agree that it's an improbable blue-sky idea; without references it is purely and simply something made up at school/college one day. The physics/engineering doesn't make any sense. Sliggy 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's published somewhere or not isn't dependent on whether this article has appropriate references - i.e., absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree that the physics seems ridiculous - the thing would have to be hotter than a sun to provide any appreciable propulsion, and then you'd have to attach a spaceship. But other thought experiments, like pure fusion weapon and Dyson's Project Orion, do have decent articles. I'd argue for the conservative "Keep" until we have better proof this is a hoax, under Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Both of the examples you list have fully-readable references available. This article does not. Sliggy 16:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have downloaded the article which is referenced now; my university apparently subscribes to this. If you like, I will mail it to you. Among its assertions are "It should be noted that the development of photon engines for space flights is an old dream of the mankind. This concept was always associated with the nuclear reaction of annihilation or fusion, however its space application has not been invented to date, and in any case it would be very expensive (Lenard et al, 2000)." The Lenard article is cited: Lenard, R.X., and Lipiniski, R.J., "Interstellar rendezvous missions employing fission propulsion systems," in Proceedings of the Space Technology Applications Int'l Forum, 2000. I believe this dispels the concerns about OR; the idea is being talked about at space technology meetings. -Ikkyu2 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found and added two further references to the article, [2] and [3] , whose abstracts discuss this (improbable) idea; so I've withdrawn my delete. There should be a source for every point made in the article, but I accept that the concept itself has been previously described. (I also think the article could do with a re-write to emphasise its highly theoretical nature, but this is not a consideration for AfD.) Sliggy 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also just discovered that the person who originated the article, User:Bryan Derksen, has been a Wikipedia member for more than four years and is currently an active admin with many thousands of helpful edits to his credit. I've dropped a note to him on his talk page; perhaps he'll have something to add here. -Ikkyu2 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I split the original article out of a much larger one that used to be at spacecraft propulsion, so I didn't exactly originate this article. However, I recall coming across the concept in other places before. I just did a quick search and I found a couple of references. I'll specify below: Bryan

• Keep. I found an external reference to a scientific journal, so "original research" doesn't seem to apply. [4] has an article on "Application of nuclear photon engines for deep-space exploration" from the AIP Conference Proceedings (authors: Andrey V. Gulevich, Eugeny A. Ivanov, Oleg F. Kukharchuk, Victor Ya. Poupko, and Anatoly V. Zrodnikov). It's subscriber-only, unfortunately. A couple other lower-quality references I found in my cursory search through the first few pages of Google results: [5] references the Wikipedia article, but says that it "is what Niven was doing back in the good old days" so this might be another lead. [6] discusses them but doesn't give a source of its own. Bryan 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research unless someone cares to prove it otherwise by providing verifiable source citations for the main points made in the article, prior to expiration of the AfD discussion. If the article is not deleted, I intend to remove all of the unsourced material in it per the verifiability policy. At the moment, that would be all of it. As always, the article can be re-created without prejudice provided all of the main assertions in it are properly sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is linked to by spacecraft propulsion, which has been a featured article. It's linked to from a wikified table in that article, as an example of a propulsion type which would have very low specific thrust designed to be applied over decades. Worth a look, especially as deletion would leave a big ugly red wikilink in a formerly-featured article. -Ikkyu2 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• KeepMeets or exceeds the minimum requirements for inclusion, and I came on the article from a Google search for "photonic rocket engines". --DV8 2XL 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please note that the original article has been extensively and verifiably referenced since the AfD was posted. Ikkyu2 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Marginal, but it should be kept if only to expain how and why it's such a rotten idea!WolfKeeper 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.