You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I understand, but here are a few points that will have to be overcome first.
1. Radioactive waste. We have yet to be able to create a device that does not generate radioactive waste. Also the first few bursts are going to be at ground level, generating tons more radioactive waste that will have to be stored.
2. It is against International Law (as it currently stands) to use nuclear devices in the atmosphere, as well as in space.
3. It would be polical suicide for any polition that would vote for it. The "No Nukes in Space" is a powerful organization covering every continent.
4. Very expensive. We are talking about several billion dollars.
5. It would be under the control of the military. Due to the nature of the "fuel". Only 2 governments have the nessisary "fuel" available. The US and Russia. Neither country would turn over weapons grade uranium and plutonium to a civilian organization, which would massively drive up the price tag
6. Public opinion. The general public is scared to death about radiation, even the safe use of it.
Can the same principle be used with non-nuclear chemical explosives. There have been massive upgrading in military and civilian explosives that approach the range of small yield nuclear devices. I ask this because of eviromental concerns raised with the use of nuclear devices, as well as the huge uproar from the world population with the thought of nuclear devices.
I also have major concerns in regards with site safety. Because of the number of nuclear devices needed to launch it, it would possibly be a major target by extreamist and radicals who might try and get their hands on the devices for use outside of peaceful ourposes.
I do understand it's potentual, exspecially for interstellar exploration, as a second stage booster (chemical being first stage to get it into space) towards bringing a craft up to Barnerd Ramjet speed
Still, how many G's of force are going to be present?? A nuclear detonation generates tons of force, that is instantly going to be applied to the pusher plate and the ship, and the crew
The problem is with the triggering devices used to detonant the chemical explosives, forcing the sections of uranium or plutonium together at high speed. They are called Krytons.
From test made in the 50's and 60's Krytons though very hardened against radiation, can be effected by a nearby EMP, causing premature detonation.
It is why nuclear devices are as heavy as they are, is to protect the krytons from EMPs, as well as shielding from radiation exposure to personnel handling the devices. The amount of fissionable material itself is not that much, depending on the size of the detonation wanted.
A question, how will the heat generated by the multiple explosions going to effect the pusher-plate, and prevent it from being vaporized???
Next question, what is the G-force that is going to be generated???
I did mean EMP, not ECM, that was a typo on my part.
One thing that has not been tested, is the effects of a multiple detonation (one right after the other in the same spot) so they are not sure if the second one would detonate inside the explosion of the first, which from my reading of Orion is required. Testing of that had been planned, but was cancelled when the nuclear testing was suspended.
I understand the basics of how to create the explosion, basicly use conventional explosives to compress the pieces of uranium past the critical mass limit, resulting in the explosion. Nuclear weapons designs is something that I do not know much about, because it is very complex to build devices so that they do not spontaniously explode, or achive "fizzle" status.
You have said that we would use hardened electronics and computers. What is the effects of the EMP on electronics very close to a nuclear explosion. My experience in the nuclear energy generation field, most of the maintenece done in a nuclear power plant is replacing electronic equipment due to long term exposure to radiation and EMP's that are constatly present, and this is hardened equipment.
I ask these questions because safety is a big concern of mine when dealing with nuclear devices
I am interested in it. In order to develope something like the Orion drive, one must identify possible problems...so one can design it to overcome those problems.
In some ways it is difficult to create a nuclear explosion...That is because most weapons grade uranium contains contaminates that have to be overcome for it to reach critical mass. The less contaminiants, the clearner it is, but unfortunately the cleaner it is, the more dangerous of it going critical. What I am worried about is that these will have to be timed pulses, but the ECM pulse could create a situation that will cause the next device in line to premature detonation.
Now you notice I am concentrating on Uranium, and not Plutonium. That is due to plutonium being one of the most poisionous elements to work with, and it would be a huge mistake to use such a material in the event of a catastrophy.
Here is a question, how are we going to stabilize the launch?? Will we need to utitlize chemical rockets so that in the case of the payload shifting off-balance during launch, the main thrust will be directed downward??
Ok, basicly if we could develope a super clean nuclear rocket engine, which from my understanding is what the Orion drive would need to be for a ground launch system, you are talking about sending something the size of a nuclear aircraft carrier into space.
Currently we have developed a possible vessal that would quallift at 15,000 tons. A modified nuclear submarine would fit the bill.
Some questions I have, deal with fuel storage, and substained nuclear pulse bursts..and most important cost. Uranium is a rare item, and very expensive to process into weapons grade. It is also very unstable substance.
Now personnelly I do not have a problem with nuclear powerplants in spaceships to provide heat, and energy for onboard systems.
What would the safety factors be. All rocket scientists will tell you that launching a vehical, is basicly having your payload on top of a barely controlled explosion. What would the results be if the Orion drive suffered a catastopic failure during a launch???
Archie, I will try and answer the questions you asked.
Anyhow, the questions.
1) Is this thing supposed to be a ground launch or orbital assembly?
This will be difficult. First off, there is no safe location to launch this from the ground. There is no country willing to be the launch site, as it would be eccological suicide. Even with very clean nuclear devices, fallout would be generated.
An orbital assembled Orion driven spacecraft would violate several international laws in regards to placing a nuclear weapon in space. Doing so, even for peaceful purposes, would be concidered by several countries as an act of war, and could trigger a surface based nuclear war.
2) If a ground launch, where do you propose to launch it from.
See the responce from answer one.
3) Give or take a few hundred tons, what is the expected mass of the Orion vehicle at take-off.
Ok, lets say someone accually built this thing. Due to the nessisary shielding to protect the crew from the nuclear explosions, we are looking at approx 10,000 tons minimal. for the ship itself, not including fuel. As this would be using fission devices, each device would need to be shielded from other devices due to the nature of uranium and plutonium. That will rase the mass by approx 1/2 ton per device. Using fusion devices is not possible with current technology. Due to the heat generated (15 million degree's at the heart of the explosion), it would easily melt the ship
4) If a ground launch, how many thermonuclear detonations will be required in the atmosphere.
Ground launch has already been ruled out due to eccological reasons
5) If a ground launch, what happens to all the communication satellites once this thing gets to high altitude as a result of EMP. See previous in regards to ground launches. Even an orbital launch, we would need to place the ship significantly away from the Earth. Even though most satilites are shielded for radiation. Several nearby ECM pulses will overload that shielding.
6) If an orbital launch, please state a reasonable time frame for development, design and construction based on experiences with the ISS.
Based on our experience with the ISS. We are talking at least 20 years of design and developement, as well as at least 10 years of construction time.
7) If an orbital launch, please give an approximate number of conventional chemical launches required to complete assembly based on current and near future launch vehicles.
The projected number of launches to build the ISS, is approximately 56. The ISS, as initially planned was to have a finished weight of 2000 tons. Based on those numbers we are looking at, at least 250 chemical launches. At those numbers, we could have sent several manned missions to Mars at a much cheaper cost.
Based on all of this information, for solar exploration, Orion is not a cost effective platform. Now there is a good reason to build one, and that would be for an Intersteller Colony ship. Due to the size of such a vehical, an Orion drive would be nessisary to provide enough thrust to activate a Barnard drive outside the solar system.
If we can build a lightweight/high radiation shielding module, the use of solar sails would be an excellent means of exploration within the solar system, as well as a reusable transport to Mars and back
Pages: 1