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

SciAuthor · 2003-03-11 23:21:49

Spacedaily - Mar 12, 2003
"Orion" was the project name of a spacecraft design study so absurd that it stood absolutely no chance of success from the very outset. The drive mechanism was to be an atomic bomb machine gun. Ridiculous as the idea seems it was still given a shoestring budget and a team of top scientists to work on it. The results of that research which ended about two generations ago are still largely classified, but what is known raises some startling questions.

Continued.

TJohn · 2003-03-12 07:26:17

A very thought provoking article. I liked it! Can you imagine what life would be like right now if Orion was allowed to proceed? Although, it surprised me that the article mentioned the Apollo program may have actually caused Orion's demise.

Palomar · 2003-03-12 10:17:47

*I'm with TJohn. Yes, I would say Project Orion is definitely worthy of a second look...and it's a shame we have to even use the words "second look" in conjunction with this.

The following paragraph especially grabbed my attention:

"They talked of sending men to Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970."

A manned mission to Mars in 1965? The year I was born! To think we possibly could have had a manned mission 37 years ago. And on to Saturn in a mere 5 additional years! My god.

I doubly feel as though we've been greatly cheated by NASA and the U.S. gov't in accomplishing such feats to date.

Wow, thanks for referring this article, SciAuthor. Thanks to the author of it, who makes it totally understandable to the layperson.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2003-03-12 20:48:08

Thumbs on the article. I love these crazy ideas that border on the insane.

Palomar · 2003-03-14 08:21:11

Thanks to the author of it, who makes it totally understandable to the layperson."
Your welcome!

Wayne Smith
Founder of NuclearSpace.

Hello, Mr. Wayne Smith!

***

To anyone who cares to answer: How long would it take a ship like Orion to reach Mars from Earth versus a chemical (is that the right word?) rocket?

Please reply in plain English. I don't understand high-tech lingo talk, scads of numbers mixed with weirdo math symbols, etc.

--Cindy

tim_perdue · 2003-03-14 13:56:55

I enjoyed this article too. It almost sounds plausible, but I suspect there are large drawbacks.

To me, it seems this ship would be hard to steer - you are assuming that each explosion is perfectly timed and detonates at exactly the center of gravity, otherwise the ship would sheer off in the other direction, and it would be a total loss.

Palomar · 2003-03-14 14:18:45

To me, it seems this ship would be hard to steer - you are assuming that each explosion is perfectly timed and detonates at exactly the center of gravity, otherwise the ship would sheer off in the other direction, and it would be a total loss.

*Not to worry! You just throw yourself onto the helm really, really hard and force it by sheer willpower to correct itself...ala Mr. Sulu of Star Trek! :laugh:

Okay, being serious: I'd like to hear more. What other potential flaws? But also...what other advantages?

--Cindy

nebob2 · 2003-03-14 16:04:50

The time required to get to Mars relies on a number of factors, but I'll try to keep it simple. Using a external pulse plasma propulsion ship small enough to be lauched in pieces using a Saturn V class rocket (10m diameter, like the ships in NASA's old DRM 1.0), General Atomic calculated that flying an oposition class mission (long travel times, short 30 day stay) could be accomplished in 300 days, 180 days to get there, 30 days at Mars, 87 days back. Chemical rocket and nuclear thermal rocket powered missions from the same time period, mid to late 1960's, usually have total mission times between 450 and 680 days (the chemical rockets are more towards the higher end), with total ship masses far greater (ranging from 2-30 million pounds of propellant alone depending on flight time, method of returning to Earth, and engines used. the ORION weighed between 1.5-1.8 million pounds total). For example an all chemical ship flying a similar trejectory planned for 180 days to Mars, 60 days on the surface, and 330 days home.

Modern tech can improve the performace enough that if used for a conjuction class mission (long stay, like Mars Direct or the DRM) flight times would likely be down around 45-60 days carring 150 tonnes of payload. Around 30 days would likely be the upper limit of how short you can reasonibly make it, with a far lower payload fraction.

For those who want performance numbers the origonal figures for the 10m size were Isp of ~2000s and 3.5 MN of thrust, the modern numbers (taken from a 2000 report by J. A. Bonometti) have an Isp of 5000s and 4 MN of thrust. Bonometti's paper also talks about a smaller version capible of being launched by a Titan IV (~4-4.3m diameter I estimate, it doesn't say in the paper) with an Isp of 4000s and 2 MN of thrust, potentialy doing away with the requirement of a HLLV.

archiebald · 2003-03-16 08:28:17

I have some pertinent questions that I would like SciAuthor and NuclearSpace to answer (in fact they are one and the same person). Doesn't it seem strange that Wayne Smith posting as "NuclearSpace" should post self congratulatory posts about himself??

Anyhow, the questions.

1) Is this thing supposed to be a ground launch or orbital assembly?

2) If a ground launch, where do you propose to launch it from.

3) Give or take a few hundred tons, what is the expected mass of the Orion vehicle at take-off.

4) If a ground launch, how many thermonuclear detonations will be required in the atmosphere.

5) If a ground launch, what happens to all the communication satellites once this thing gets to high altitude as a result of EMP.

6) If an orbital launch, please state a reasonable time frame for development, design and construction based on experiences with the ISS.

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.

It seems to me that this abomination is technically, economically and politically dead in the water and has been for a long time. Why the need to fantasize about something that cannot and will not happen, at least in our lifetimes (which will be shortened anyhow if Orion ever does get ground launch approval)

It is an interesting fantasy machine just as the starship Enterprise is, nothing more.

Archie

dicktice · 2003-03-16 08:58:41

...And they could sleep with spare penny-size pieces of Plutonium beneath their pillows to keep themselves warm, as well!

archiebald · 2003-03-17 08:02:56

Woh,
check out the hostility. If you come here to post in a reasonable manner then why start calling people names?? Did I call you a name??

Let me ask those questions again, since you obviously failed to understand them or are incapable of answering them.

1) Is this thing supposed to be a ground launch or orbital assembly?

Which thing? Have you built an Orion and want suggestions on what to do with it? One answer comes to mind.

Let's rephrase this one then, so that you can understand. Are you proposing that a spacecraft known as the Orion vehicle that uses thermonuclear material as it's propellent be ground launched or do you propose that said vehicle be assembled in orbit.

2) If a ground launch, where do you propose to launch it from.

The roof of your house.

Clearly this is not the correct answer, would you care to mention an approximate geographical location where it would be safe for the nearest population and be politically and ecologically acceptable.

3) Give or take a few hundred tons, what is the expected mass of the Orion vehicle at take-off.

It could be any size over 4000 tons I suppose.

Thank you, a sensible answer.

4) If a ground launch, how many thermonuclear detonations will be required in the atmosphere.

Depends on the size. A thousand nukes could put the White House on the moon.

I didn't ask about the Whitehouse, although I suggest that is a worthwhile use of 1,000 nuclear devices, but I asked about Orion. Why do you find it necessary to be so sarcastic and agressive??

So, we are talking about a space vehicle having a mass of around 4,000 tons. Could you be more specific about the quantity and yield of the thermonuclear devices required to put it into a high earth orbit. Since this is a Mars forum, I don't see the connection with the moon.

5) If a ground launch, what happens to all the communication satellites once this thing gets to high altitude as a result of EMP.

The EMP range of small devices is very small. Those satellites not hardened will have their circuits fried.

So, we can expect that a launch would knock out a number of weather and communication satellites, is that correct. Do we therefore assume that the country launching the Orion will compensate the owners?

6) If an orbital launch, please state a reasonable time frame for development, design and construction based on experiences with the ISS.

Based on the ISS! LOL.

Why the sarcasm again? The ISS is the largest project to date of any major orbiting assembly. What is the current mass of the ISS, about 400 tons if memory serves. The Orion craft that you have propsed is around 10 times larger. Assuming that the political will were there to create such a monstrous waste of resources (which it clearly is not), it would take at least 10 times as much effort and time to accomplish.

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.

I could probably find that one out for you but we both know you only came here to stir up trouble. Your next post will be a fervent froth of hatred. The Mars Society is not a podium for your personal agenda. You have already been told this by moderators at other boards you have trolled.

Well, yes since you are such an avid proponent of this fantasy ship, it would be nice to see some supporting information, otherwise what should we believe except that it is indeed a schoolboy fantasy.

Why should I post a "fervent froth of hatred" although by re-reading your post I would seem entitled to. I ask a set of reasonable questions but you obviously carry a chip on your shoulder.

Also, you claim I have been "told this by moderators at other boards". Please provide some links to back that up. It is not wise to make personal attacks and post lies about a member at any forums unless you can back it up. Doing so will get you banned.

But you would already know that, having been banned by Space.Com on numerous occasions for spamming and posting porn, banned by Everythng Space, then came back to hack into a personal email account to exact your revenge, banned by Sciforums.Com under several user names for impersonating people, and posting personal information, and yes, even having been banned by NuclearSpace at EZboards since your hack attack of EverythingSpace because they wanted to disown you.. And don't confront me on this because you know very well I can post the links in an instant to back-up what I say as truth.

Anyhow, no need for nastyness, why don't you have the courtesy to answer the remaining five unanswered questions.

Archie

soph · 2003-03-17 18:19:50

Wayne, posting yales's details at space.com was not cool. And archie has done nothing wrong. I used to respect you, but it's gone.

dicktice · 2003-03-17 18:23:18

NuclearSpace/Archibald: I wish you both would toddle off somewhere else to vent your spleens. Start your own "Pluto Society," for instance. Now, returning to the Mars Project, where were we...?

soph · 2003-03-17 20:12:30

I've seen his posts at SDC and ES...I just don't see the kind of aggressiveness that you've shown.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 20:44:59

Wow, what a mess...

soph · 2003-03-17 21:40:26

I never saw archie post your personal details on every website he could get his hands on.

archiebald · 2003-03-17 21:41:03

Well,
I am sorry to the other members if I triggered something here. As a new member, I came here to discuss and learn, not to be attacked.

BTW, thank you Soph.

I have an interest in Project Orion insofar as I see a set of insurmountable challenges to it ever becoming a reality. Back in the "nuclear golden age" of the 50's and early 60's it might have sounded attractive, but today it is just a piece of cold war fantasy.

All I have done is post a set of questions that are necessary for any proponent of orion to have thought out answers to if there is even a tiny chance of any R&D being done. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will.

I will admit, that I and others have raised the same questions before but they have never been satisfactorily answered. But while there are people who continue to beat others over the head with it, then there needs to be a balanced opinion against it.

Wayne, if you cannot answer a very simple set of 7 practical questions to forward the idea of Orion, then what is the point in talking about it any further.

Rather than ranting and accusing other people of attacking the idea, surely it is better to go away and build up a strong case based on sound scientific and politically acceptable principles.

Otherwise, it is surely better to steer the discussion away from Orion and toward something that IS practical.

Archie

soph · 2003-03-17 21:46:12

NTRs, as I have said, are a better application for nuclear power.

They can be made safe, clean, and efficient.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-11 23:21:49

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

#2 2003-03-12 07:26:17

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

#3 2003-03-12 10:17:47

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

#4 2003-03-12 20:48:08

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

#5 2003-03-14 08:21:11

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

#6 2003-03-14 13:56:55

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

#7 2003-03-14 14:18:45

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

#8 2003-03-14 16:04:50

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

#9 2003-03-16 08:28:17

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

#10 2003-03-16 08:58:41

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

#11 2003-03-17 08:02:56

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

#12 2003-03-17 18:19:50

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

#13 2003-03-17 18:23:18

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

#14 2003-03-17 20:12:30

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

#15 2003-03-17 20:44:59

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

#16 2003-03-17 21:40:26

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

#17 2003-03-17 21:41:03

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

#18 2003-03-17 21:46:12

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

Board footer