Project Orion. Worthy of a second look? - New Article at Spacedaily.

Gennaro · 2003-04-22 02:22:00

Soph, I didn't say it had to have a 160 man crew. I meant that there's enough bulk potential to trade in for any mission requirement you want. Just think about the potential of the Orion in terms of near Earth industrial expansion! You'll be able to put a toroidal space station up there in no time.
Man, is the ISS going to look ridiculous when blasted by by a 10,000 ton Orion!

Also, I wasn't really asking about the pusher plate in itself, but rather about the construction of the ejection system and eventual stress upon/through it. Are the bomblets really going to be dropped through an open hole in the blast and radiation protective plate? Still, thanks for the reply.

Neither did anyone care to answer just how the ground launch of an Orion would be carried out. If you simply put the Orion on a launch pad and ignite an a-bomb, I have a feeling you don't have an Orion anymore.

Maybe these are tremendously stupid questions, but lacking technical education I'm afraid I represent your regular ignorant public, so please bear with me, will you?

The "No Nukes in Space" people have been moderately successful if you consider that ESA doesn't condone the use of nuclear power in space, but the anti-nuke activists have been very unsuccessful in the United States.

- Darn, I hate this! Why must Euro leadership always be so narrow minded? Will you in America be cool while we in Europe carry out some revolutionary political changes? We need a centralized, efficient structure and a government that actually wants to make things happen!

Gennaro · 2003-04-24 12:23:24

Fascinating. If I have understood this correctly, I can see that the issue involves major engineering challenges. Not only must the pillars of the tower be able to support 10,000 tons of weight, but the spaceship will obviously have to be constructed on top of it. Also, when the first pulses are launched, the pillars must be designed in such a way that the collapsing tower will not interfer with the take off.

Do you mean to imply that the hundreds of meters between detonation and pusherplate is something required also for the initial rapid succession mini bomblets, you mention?
If so I can't see how it could be done. Building spaceships on the roof of the Empire State building sounds preposterous.

Gennaro · 2003-04-26 08:27:31

Hm, no replies as of yet (and I who tried not to look too impatient! ).
Okay, let me rephrase what I'm hinting at. I guess there ought to be a relationship between power of detonation, distance to pusherplate and mass of ship.
Concievably, if we designed suitable mini pulse units released at a high rate at take-off (as suggested) and maybe built a smaller Orion, could not a balanced thrust be attainable with a considerable reduction in blast to ship distance, that is less than several hundreds of meters between detonation and pusherplate?

My idea of a launch site would namely be a circular 'crater' or bowl with a corresponding depth, and we don't want to have to dig this too deep.
At the bottom pillars would be erected around the center of the detonation point, supporting a platform on top (at ground level) upon which the Orion is assembled. Multiple steel girders leading from the edge of the bowl to the platform would provide additional stability as well as serving as bridges to transport men and material to the construction platform.
Prior to take-off the launch platform would be stripped of everything not needed to support the Orion itself and as the first pulse units went off at the bottom of the bowl, the entire tower construction would cave in a controlled demolition fashion (the horizontal steel girders could prove helpful also in this regard, slowing down and controlling the collapse) leaving the Orion free room to ascend into space.

As stated, I'm no engineer but what do you think? Could the basic proposition be considered as sound?

Oh, and one more thing! Have any depictions survived on the early fifties Orions? I've never seen anything but the sixties "worst compromise" version available anywhere.
Would be great to see how they looked.
Thanks!

Gennaro · 2003-04-27 01:45:46

Sorry. I sometimes get distracted with other things and forget to check in at different forums and their categories.

- Know what you mean. If you follow up on every forum you attend you sometimes have no time left for anything else. Also, it can sap one's energy pretty effectively.
I'm glad you found the time to reply to my questions.

Sounds very similar to what I was thinking.

- Great and thank's for the link! I agree, that ship looks an awful lot like being bolted together with "rivets".
Maybe the crew is wearing silver suits too?

Jean Baudrillard once said that "sometime in the early 80's, history took a turn and headed off in the 'opposite direction'". If getting to the future means going to the past, I find it sometimes may never the less have a very positive meaning.

Cheers!
Gennaro

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-04-22 02:22:00

Re: Project Orion. Worthy of a second look? - New Article at Spacedaily.

#77 2003-04-24 12:23:24

Re: Project Orion. Worthy of a second look? - New Article at Spacedaily.

#78 2003-04-26 08:27:31

Re: Project Orion. Worthy of a second look? - New Article at Spacedaily.

#79 2003-04-27 01:45:46

Re: Project Orion. Worthy of a second look? - New Article at Spacedaily.

Board footer