Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

John Creighton · 2005-08-08 17:57:15

I am starting to think given the low yield and high price of small nuclear weapons that the only way to do project Orion is to do it really big. I am talking about not just lifting a space ship but lifting an entire city or island. I think that there could be a market for it too. Call it Project Noah.

Build a city on earth that is completely protected from the outside of earths environment. Build the city as giant doom. Have the dome composed of a number of cells where each cell on its own is structurally strong enough to withstand 1 Atmosphere or greater pressure difference across its walls, has it’s own life support systems perhaps including it’s own power source. The only dependence on one cell to another will be as a place to dump waste heat. However, each cell well be able to exchange resources such as air and power to neighboring cells so that it is not necessary to activate all life support features of each cell. Rather each cell adds redundancy to increase the design life of the city.

Built as a dome composed of a number of cells each having a high degree of structural strength the city will be built to withstand many forces and will be able to suffer damage without destroying the functionality of the city. It will be a well suited vehicle to ride upon a nuclear shock wave to space and then deal with the forces in space. Even if there is some air leaks in the outer cells, the air leaks in the inner cells will be relatively negligible because they will be buffered by the outer cells. The city will form only the top of the vehicle and the vehicle will be built down into the earth as the city evolves.

The city provides a place for the crew to live and work well the vehicle is being constructed and the island provides a way of supporting the vehicle. In a typical Orion design I am left to wonder how are you going to lift a vehicle 1000MT or greater high enough to withstand the detonation of a nuclear bomb. This design takes the alternative approach and instead of lifting the vehicle above earth to detonate the first bomb at ground level, the bombs are detonating well below the earth and the whole vehicle rises up from the groud not with a little small scale fission devices but a giant full scale fusion bombs.

The efficiency only scales up with size with getting a better yield per mass and once is space being able to use not only ablative methods of transferring heat to thrust but electromagnetic methods better direct the energy of the explosion.

The economics are uncertain. I would suggest the private funding comes from renting rooms on the city. People rent rooms for a given period of time and with the rent comes a share in future profits of that room should they not continue their lease. So renting a room is like buying a share except as a perk you get a free place to stay. People buy rooms because they believe that project Noa Offers protection for theme or for there children should a catastrophe befall the earth. It will also be declared a tax free haven so cooperate business can move there head office to the island to protect themselves from earth taxes.

Perhaps at first it could be built so it could be launched at a smaller scalar and as the design evolves what was once built as a purser plate could be come an intermediate shock absorber between the city and the new larger further away pusher plate. This could allow the design to be used early in an emergence giving the city more upfront value but alow a more robost efficient vehicle later on.

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-03-16 15:36:03

Your ARC SHIP need not be the size of Monaco to be an effective lifeboat
for humanity unless the Earth was Doomed and it din't matter what you did
to it once you left.

Your ship would be 50% Push Plate because you probably need to use
hydrogen bombs, Fission would to too clumsy at the size and quantities neeeded

Assuming it's your arc is 1sq mi.

that's .5 cubic miles of Iron-carbon matrix derived pusher plate (I don't think you can use lead, there aren't enough lead mines & processed Lead to provide even a tenth of that.)

You don't need something this big unless your talking about
a ship for a hundred thousand people or more.

I believe there was a study that for humans to have thriving society
there must be the potential for interaction with at least 5,000 other
non-related humans of both sexes.

That is close to the completement of a Nimitz class Carrier.
Assume you want ample Elbow room say 5x Liviing space
Also Space to store basic raw supplies for an endurance of 100 year, bring this
up to 10X Nimitz Volume.

The most effficient centrifugal gravity design would probably be a dumbell
[]------[] style design which means two launches, for each half.

You could create a Toroid shaped Spaceship, But you will find that the
Pusher plate size required for earth launch
would be formidable compared to the two launch dumbell.

John Creighton · 2006-03-17 19:58:07

So the idea is to launch two is ships the size 10 times the size of an aircraft carrier separately and couple then like a dumbbell for artificial G. For making a city that doubles as a space ship this could work quite well, as the cable could be attached to the top of the city.

I think that in space the two cities/space ships would fly in parallel well accelerating at a good fraction of a G. I am not sure if a fusion powered Orion ship could accelerate at this speed all the way to the destination or, if part way, the ships would stop the burn, doc to each other via a teather and rotate for artificial gravity. Regardless once at the destination the ships would do the docking procedure to give any people in space artificial gravity.

MarsDog · 2006-03-18 17:30:03

Mass increases as the cube while strength as the square.

There is a limit where the structural elements consume all the space.
For 2G into orbit, how large spaceship could you build ?

Scaling the Eifel tower, possible, to what ultimate height ?

John Creighton · 2006-03-18 18:20:56

Mass increases as the cube while strength as the square.

That depends on the Gemoetry

There is a limit where the structural elements consume all the space.
For 2G into orbit, how large spaceship could you build ?

Scaling the Eifel tower, possible, to what ultimate height ?

Here is an idea how the city/ship might be structurally engineered. Across the top of the city would be a massive horizontal truss. The top part of the truss would be carbon nanotube reinforced steel. This will support the tensile load that would cause the city to break in to as it is pushed up from the center. The top part of the truss could be in a circular shape kind of like a doily.

To counter act the moment that could cause the city to snap in two as it is pushed up from the center there would also need to be a compressive layer. This layer would also be circular. It would be built deeper in the city and made of steel reinforced concrete with a high quartz content. There would be hollow pyramids of steal connecting the two layers to deal with sheer stresses.

The compressive layer would be held in compression by two loads. The first load would be the breaking moment described above. The second load would be the carbon nanotube cables attached bellow the compressive layer. These cables would be in tension and angled from the city down towards a center pusher column. The first layer of cables would be at a near horizontal angle but going slightly down into the earth/sea. The next layer of cables would be at a more vertical angle and attached part way down the first layer of cables. This pattern would continue as we got closer to the bottom of the pusher column.

Attached to these cables could be sheets of Kevlar to hold the shock absorbers inside the cables that support the pressure column. The shock absorbers could be made of foarm, aerogell or balloons with a carbon nanotube membrane. The shock absorbers would also add to the compressive strength of the structure and would support a movement to help hold the pusher column in place.

It would be necessary to adjust the modulus of elasticity inside the shock absorbing layer so that the pusher column could be moved slightly off center to help counteract any ship rotation. Some ways to do this include mechanically squishing parts of the shock absorbing layer. If carbon nanotube balloons were used as the shock absorbers the air pressure inside of the balloons could be increased or reduced via pumps to help push the pusher column to the desired location.

John Creighton · 2006-03-18 18:21:54

As for the pusher column, it could look like an upside down Eifel tower

MarsDog · 2006-03-18 22:51:07

http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/
can approximate maximum scaled Eifel tower from ideas here:
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/Hierarch.html

The Eiffel tower is third order, and has a relative density (density r) as mass per unit volume of the structure divided by density ro of material of which it is made) r / ro just 1.2 x 10-3 times that of of iron

How many times can multiply height before no room for anything but structural beams ??

publiusr · 2006-03-23 15:01:52

In the book on Orion By Freeman's son, the largest surface launched ORION would be about 400 meters across--about the length of Jahre Viking. It could be disguised as a work platform for a Bering strait bridge with isolated power generation and loaded with all electrical Earthmovers. Sailors might wonder at the massive size of the "stilts" to keep it above water.

When the Bridge is finished, The worlds nuclear arsenal is placed aboard and you have an instant moonbase.

Build it by sneak

Seriously--get Sea Dragon built and be glad you have it. That is as big as anyone really needs.

John Creighton · 2006-03-26 21:30:41

In the book on Orion By Freeman's son, the largest surface launched ORION would be about 400 meters across--about the length of Jahre Viking. It could be disguised as a work platform for a Bering strait bridge with isolated power generation and loaded with all electrical Earthmovers. Sailors might wonder at the massive size of the "stilts" to keep it above water.
When the Bridge is finished, The worlds nuclear arsenal is placed aboard and you have an instant moonbase.
Build it by sneak
Seriously--get Sea Dragon built and be glad you have it. That is as big as anyone really needs.

Do you on earth in areas where labor is expensive they often build massive modules and ship them to the destination instead of building them on site. In space the price of labor is astronomical. Without a massive reduction in the launch cost which sea dragon won’t provide, there are only two ways to get around this problem. The first method is to try to rely on robotics to build the required infrastructure remotely. The other approach is to build large modules on earth where labor is cheap and resources are relatively plentiful and lift them in extremely large pieces. An Orion type space shape is probably the only ship capable of lisfting 1000 s or even millions of tons from earth in a single throw.

publiusr · 2006-03-29 15:04:28

Orion will cost a lot more. Sea Dragon is simple by comparison. It is small compared to the Troll platform which cost around a Titan IV launch or two to build.

John Creighton · 2006-03-29 20:08:27

Orion will cost a lot more. Sea Dragon is simple by comparison. It is small compared to the Troll platform which cost around a Titan IV launch or two to build.

I agree. I kind of see it like this. We may in the near future develop a cheap method to get to space or utilize existing launch technology to establish a good foothold in space anyway. However, if we don’t the colony of the future could be built on earth. I agree that the complexity of the enterprise is massive but keep in mind that Cathedrals were built over multiple generations. If people believed in something enough they would devote their resources. So if you could convince people you could build a vehicle robust enough to survive several generations with reliable enough engineering that it will work the first time then there is a chance people would devote resources to it. Even if we get to space by other means there may be no cheaper way to build an Orion propelled colony then right here on earth.

MarsDog · 2006-04-02 14:08:14

Even if we get to space by other means there may be no cheaper way to build an Orion propelled colony then right here on earth.

Very large objects lanunched from Earth are impossible because of the square cube ratio.
It has to be assembled in space, so that the cube does not overwhelm the square.

Even in space, close to Earth, there is Roche's limit.

John Creighton · 2006-04-02 14:21:58

Even if we get to space by other means there may be no cheaper way to build an Orion propelled colony then right here on earth.
Very large objects lanunched from Earth are impossible because of the square cube ratio.
It has to be assembled in space, so that the cube does not overwhelm the square.
Even in space, close to Earth, there is Roche's limit.

If the object in space is to be used for transportation or an O’neal colony it must also be able to deal with atleast 1 G accelerations. The trick to overcoming Rouche’s limit is to increase the size by increasing the width and not the height.

MarsDog · 2006-04-02 19:04:15

it must also be able to deal with at least 1 G accelerations

That seems a good guide for desired structural limitations.
How large diameter possible for the 1G limit cylinder ?
Will have to investigate for wheel spoke design and simple tube.

John Creighton · 2006-04-02 20:49:30

it must also be able to deal with at least 1 G accelerations
That seems a good guide for desired structural limitations.
How large diameter possible for the 1G limit cylinder ?
Will have to investigate for wheel spoke design and simple tube.

Well, with carbon nanotubes you could build a structure that has a radius equal to the height of a space elevator. You probably could even make the wheel part out of concrete if desired.

MarsDog · 2006-04-03 01:49:41

Googling around for spinning hoops:

acceleration = ω^2 * r

hoop stress = density * ω^2 * r^2

For 1G = 9.8 m/sec^2 and Nanotube 150 GPa, density 2.6

150 * 10^9 = 2.6 * 9.8 * r

r = 5.89 *10^9 meters, or 5.89 million kilometers is limiting radius

Design for safety factor of 10
add spokes just in case a panel gets blown out by an asteroid.
Million kilometer diameter 1G tube possible ?
Hide a brown dwarf star inside as the onboard nuclear power plant ?
Block one end to make a Supersized Intergalactic Starship ?

Sun is 1.4 million km diameter.
Build a large pusher plate, rotating 1/10 G, diameter 10 million km.
Pusher plate dwelling, not quite a Dyson sphere
But you get to steer a star !

=================================

Radius increases with stress (GPa)

See page 22; STRESSES IN THIN ROTATING RINGS:
http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/mech/ugrad/ … apter2.ppt
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2002fall/ … apter7.ppt

F1-X!? · 2006-07-04 10:40:45

If James Blish were still alive he would offer the Wagoner Gravitron-Polarity Generator(SPINDIZZIE!). Perfect for the job! Actually Orion relied upon the well-known hollow charge principle to direct an explosion-path of least resistance et-al. Presumably it's merely a matter of magnitude: high-yield fusion devices in place of (relatively) low-yield fission types of Orion. Proviso: OUT IN SPACE! With the required number of devices needed for a city to exit the Earth's gravity-well, the consequent massive release of neutrons should insure an unmanned vehicle & launch area;not to mention Planet! :twisted:

John Creighton · 2006-07-09 22:26:04

If James Blish were still alive he would offer the Wagoner Gravitron-Polarity Generator(SPINDIZZIE!). Perfect for the job! Actually Orion relied upon the well-known hollow charge principle to direct an explosion-path of least resistance et-al. Presumably it's merely a matter of magnitude: high-yield fusion devices in place of (relatively) low-yield fission types of Orion. Proviso: OUT IN SPACE! With the required number of devices needed for a city to exit the Earth's gravity-well, the consequent massive release of neutrons should insure an unmanned vehicle & launch area;not to mention Planet! :twisted:

I so wish I new how to calculate the fallout to the crew and the planet. I currently lack much of the knowledge needed to design and analyze the optimal Orion ship. I think the greater concern is the health of the crew rather then the health of the planet as numerous fusion devices have already been detonated on earth without any dramatic effect on the world environment.

F1-X!? · 2006-07-10 08:16:32

If James Blish were still alive he would offer the Wagoner Gravitron-Polarity Generator(SPINDIZZIE!). Perfect for the job! Actually Orion relied upon the well-known hollow charge principle to direct an explosion-path of least resistance et-al. Presumably it's merely a matter of magnitude: high-yield fusion devices in place of (relatively) low-yield fission types of Orion. Proviso: OUT IN SPACE! With the required number of devices needed for a city to exit the Earth's gravity-well, the consequent massive release of neutrons should insure an unmanned vehicle & launch area;not to mention Planet! :twisted:
I so wish I new how to calculate the fallout to the crew and the planet. I currently lack much of the knowledge needed to design and analyze the optimal Orion ship. I think the greater concern is the health of the crew rather then the health of the planet as numerous fusion devices have already been detonated on earth without any dramatic effect on the world environment.

Or so we're told! To merely move say, a 100,000T ship out of the gravity-well of Earth will require a minimum of 64Million Megatons of force: a fair # of T-NDs. Imagine a city weighing a 1000 times that. I don't think Crew health is too much of a problem - apart from the huge quantities of polystyrene & polyethelene required behind the blast plate to deflect and absorb , alpha, beta & gamma rays, not to mention neutrons. But for those in the direct path.... Mark you, space itself is loaded with radiation of every known variety, making the term "space" somewhat of a misnomer!

publiusr · 2006-08-11 14:34:35

Orion will cost a lot more. Sea Dragon is simple by comparison. It is small compared to the Troll platform which cost around a Titan IV launch or two to build.
I agree. I kind of see it like this. We may in the near future develop a cheap method to get to space or utilize existing launch technology to establish a good foothold in space anyway. However, if we don’t the colony of the future could be built on earth. I agree that the complexity of the enterprise is massive but keep in mind that Cathedrals were built over multiple generations. If people believed in something enough they would devote their resources. So if you could convince people you could build a vehicle robust enough to survive several generations with reliable enough engineering that it will work the first time then there is a chance people would devote resources to it. Even if we get to space by other means there may be no cheaper way to build an Orion propelled colony then right here on earth.

Thank you. Orion was said to work beter the bigger it got. BDBs are that way too, in that as the cube goes up the surface area goes up by the square. At a large sixe with a lot of propellant--Sea Dragon hulls can be thick by human standards but thin in comparison to the whole vehicle.

On one board--someone proposed putting an Arktica sized reactor on an LNG ship that must carry supercold liquids in any event.

You get your propellant for free--and when not launching--you sell hydrogen in place of natural gas.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-08-08 17:57:15

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#2 2006-03-16 15:36:03

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#3 2006-03-17 19:58:07

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#4 2006-03-18 17:30:03

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#5 2006-03-18 18:20:56

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#6 2006-03-18 18:21:54

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#7 2006-03-18 22:51:07

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#8 2006-03-23 15:01:52

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#9 2006-03-26 21:30:41

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#10 2006-03-29 15:04:28

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#11 2006-03-29 20:08:27

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#12 2006-04-02 14:08:14

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#13 2006-04-02 14:21:58

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#14 2006-04-02 19:04:15

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#15 2006-04-02 20:49:30

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#16 2006-04-03 01:49:41

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#17 2006-07-04 10:40:45

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#18 2006-07-09 22:26:04

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#19 2006-07-10 08:16:32

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

#20 2006-08-11 14:34:35

Re: Project Noah (Big cousin of Project Orion)

Board footer