A diamond hull will not be enough!

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">jcdenton - ..back up all your posts <b>(reports)</b>...</font><br />rofl<br /><br />But.. but.. that would deny me the pleasure of.. typing them up! <looks around in astonishment /><br /><br />Besides, it's fun to post something, learn something new, try to communicate it and not have to worry that a bunch of people's jobs may depend on it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />A clear lesson of seeking knowledge just for the enjoyment of it. If I didn't learn something new everyday.. why... I couldn't replace all the stuff I forget!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jcdenton]

Don't get me wrong packet, I think your posts are well worth reading, it's just that it'd be unfortunate if they became lost packets (pun not intended). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Outstanding idea! We'll call it "Orkin One."<br /><br />jcd - A little secret: I'm never satisified with anything I do in one "sitting." Since I don't compose posts but write them on the fly, that's why their so long I suppose. So, brevity is sacrificed due to overcompensating. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />DOH!!!<br /><br />No kidding! ROFL.. guess what? LOLOLOL MY "Delete" key just broke! ROFLMAO. I ain't kiddin!! LOL<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[nexium]

I agree space has mostly dynamic friction, (so is air friction) but why distingush between static and dynamic friction? Friction will be important if we ever build a craft capable of 1% of light speed. The microscopic and smaller collisions will release dangerous amounts of Xray, gamma ray and high speed ionized particles. This will likely be a bigger problem than the radiation from the engine. Neil

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">The blast for Orion would be 25,000 times stronger and the structure of the pusher plate would be weaker? Where did you get this information by the way? Twenty-five thousand times greater? Huh? Structurally weaker? What?</font><br />Pay attention son. This is math that I worked out based on the information you provided in your links. 25,000 comes from squaring the ratio between the distance your link says the bombs must be from the pusher plate to the distance from the railroad bridge. The railroad bridge is structurally stronger than the Orion ship because it doesn't pay a mass penalty in its construction. Buy a clue, packet.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">But maddad says .. that the blast is 25,000 times stronger..!! Well maddad, where do you get your information from.</font><br />Your link son says the bomb must be 3.5 meters from the pusher plate. Buy a clue, packet.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">My comment concerning the bridge was directed, in general, to the structure (railroad bridge) involved in the blast. It did not suffer as much damage from debris and the shock wave as other structures because it presented less resistance.</font><br />Exactly. The railroad bridge is not designed to maximize exposure to the bomb blast, but the pusherplate is. Since the pusher plate does not have the reduced resistance that the railroad bridge has, it receives a greater percentage of the blast damage. Buy a clue, packet.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">There have been several simultaneous tests. I know that Operation Plowshare involved simultaneous tests.</font><br />I'm glad that you know this. Now provide the names of the blasts and their dates and times so that we can know it too. Since you have the same data that I have, what I know is that you'll have a damned hard time coming up with it because no such simultaneous tests ever took place.<br /><br />Here's a quote for you: "

 

[nexium]

I had not heard before that unobtainium is needed for Orian pusher plate to achieve 1/10 c in a reasonable length of time, but I can believe that the mass of the many nukes required makes less than 1/10 c more probable. Obviously we need to scale back the size of the nukes (and/or add supplimentary radiation shielding) so the reproductive system of the female humans survive long enough to give birth to the next generation. If Orian reaches 1/10 c, the radiation from the craft coliding with sub atomic particles may be more dangerous than the radiation from the nukes. Neil

 

[mcbethcg]

20 foot of steel will stop any radiation from any number of nuclear bombs. Which would be present when you include all the machinery and the blast plate.<br /><br />Maddad has proven again and again that he knows nothing about Orion, bombs, etc. He obviously does not actually read the materials. I wouldn't take his opinion too seriously.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

In response to Maddad's post rife with juvenile "Buy a clue packet" tags..<br /><br />Here are a portion of my previous posts:<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">a_lost_packet_-You seem to be enamored of this phrase. Did you make it up yourself? Or, do you just repeat it because you have nothing substantive to say. Does it make you feel better to post veiled insults? I have backed up everything I have said. I have backed up every commentary I have offered on Project Orion with direct links or quotes from credible sources. You offer nothing substantive on the issue. <br /><br />Other posters have posted quality rebuttals to Project Orion. Other posters have included informed opinions regarding certain caveats. I once instructed you to read over such a post and learn the proper way to present a differing opinion. Instead, you bring "figures" out of thin air and make claims concerning something that you obviously have no knowledge of. You appear to prefer to add insults along the line in order to give the false impression that you have some knowledge of what you are discussing. Why is that? <br /><br />I have posted on "Project Orion" far more than I would have wished on this thread. Truthfully, this sort of commentary should have been offered on the old, permanently lost in the ether, "Project Orion" thread which was on the board before the "Great Crash." The Project Orion debate between myself and maddad has derailed the thread from it's intended purpose. Other posters have contributed to Project Orion subject matter; that is true. Many have been substantive and intriguing posts detailing their concerns with the project. However, it is still detracting from the discussion of "Shielding." <br /><br />In that light, if maddad is agreable, I will cease posting on this particular topic in order to serve the best interests of the thread. If maddad manages to post without being insulting, I will not rebut. My case for the appropriatness, validity and credibility of the tests al</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jaredgalen]

Okay, I'm a vary late entrant to this discussion and have not much experience in pretty much all of what is being discussed, but here goes.<br /><br />When it comes to the pusher plate people were arguing that the steel plate could not withstand the temperatures it would be exposed to from the nuclear explosions. <br />What if there was something incorporated to contuct the heat away from the steel plate.<br />The space shuttles uses it's tiles to absorb the heat and re-radiate it at a different frequency. <br /><br />Also it was mentioned about the effect of radiation on the steel plate (I think neutron capture) <br /><br />By the time something like this was to be built perhaps a less dense material capable of withstanding similar punishment as the steel would do? Would this allow more radiation to be passed through and handled behind the plate where it would not need to put up with the nuclear blasts? <br />Maybe even a material incorporating some of the properties of the shuttle tiles.<br /><br />Please don't bite the head off me if these have been covered, I just came across this discussion now and didn't have time to read it all. I wanted to post my ideas before I forgot them. <br />

 

[paradoxical]

Are you referring to means of containing propulsion...shielding against nuclear basts?<br /><br />This problem is simply insignificant to the problem of hull deterioration. I keep thinking...what's the point in advanced propulsion systems unless we learn to first maintain hull integrity?

 

[nexium]

Hi jared: In some respects, comparison to the shuttle tiles is appropriate. Most materials (including the pusher plate) in ground zero of the nukes will ablate = grow thinner, so dangerous amounts of gamma radiation and neutrons will reach the humans after the 1000th (or some number) of blasts on the pusher plate.<br /> Conducting the heat away between blasts (making super heated steam?) should help a little and provide auxillary power.<br /> My guess is most of the "push" occurs because the neutrons are absorbed, but they can be absorbed after they pass though the steel plate, which is to say the pusher plate can be a composite that contain little or no steel. We have lots of options, but most will be more costly than steel.

 

[jaredgalen]

Is there any reason that the drive mechanism caould not be placed at the front of the spacecraft.<br />Do the detonations expand radially, and if so could the power from the detonation <br />that pointing back to the back of the ship be directed to provide additional propulsion?<br /><br />With the drive at the front of the craft, it would probaby require considerably more shielding for the crew quarters but could it provide a means of shielding<br />the ship from incoming debris? <br />Would their be a way of generating a usable shieldfield from the nuclear detonations themselves or perhaps any generated magnetic fields (if any are produced, I don't know)<br /><br />Again, I'm just throwing things out here. I accept that they could be totally ridiculous.<br />jG

 

[Maddad]

mcbethcg<br />"<font color="yellow">20 foot of steel will stop any radiation from any number of nuclear bombs.</font><br /><br />20 Feet of concrete became the superheated plasma from a <strong><em>single</em></strong> blast that ejected the manhole cover to six times Earth's escape velocity. I know your religion believes that steel is somehow different from concrete, but then again, you don't believe in experimental evidence.

 

[Maddad]

jaredgalen<br />"<font color="yellow">What if there was something incorporated to contuct the heat away from the steel plate.</font><br /><br />packet gave us a link to show us what we could expect. In 31 miliseconds the two tons of vaporized concrete near the blast reached the steel manhole cover welded to the wall of the shaft. The weld failed from this superheated plasma, firing the manhole cover out the end of the shaft at a minimum speed of six times Earth's escape velocity - at least 56,000 meters per second. (The manhole cover was only visible in one of the high speed camera's frames, so we could not measure its speed easily. However, we know its minimum speed since it would have shown up in a second frame should it have been going any slower than 56,000 meters per second. It could have been going faster, although some other calculations also predict a speed of around that.) Things are happening way to fast for heat to conduct away from the pusher plate.<br /><br />Project Orion calls for a series of closely spaced (roughly one second apart) nuclear explosions, a design requirement that has never been tested. Had we tried to test it that day, that manhole cover would no longer even been in Earth's atmosphere, much less 3.5 meters (required from packet's links) from the next blast.

 

[Maddad]

jaredgalen<br />"<font color="yellow">Is there any reason that the drive mechanism caould not be placed at the front of the spacecraft.</font><br /><br />The propulsion concept is still one of reaction mass being expelled in one direction to drive the ship in the opposite direction. We take advantage of the principle that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The ship will move away from whichever end houses the engine. By this definition, the front will be the other end from the engine.

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">You have not reviewed the information I presented.</font><br />I reviewed the information you presented, obviously, since I have quoted from it.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You have not taken any time to look at the experimental evidence which developed from the Orion Project.</font><br />Project Orion never performed any such experiments. <strong><em>Look at your own links; I did.</em></strong> All experiments you pointed to were conducted by the American military, not project Orion.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the tests conducted and their significance. . . experimental evidence indicates ablative and thermal damage to the proposed shielding for Orion . . . </font><br />You do not understand that if we never recovered the manhole, we are unable to say whether it survived ablation and thermal damage or not.<br /><br />You also do not understand that Orion proposes exposing the pusher plate to many thousands of closely spaced (roughly one second apart) nuclear blasts, and that we have never exposed <strong><em>anything</em></strong> to so much as even two closely space blasts.<br /><br />Finally, you do not understand that nuclear temperatures are three orders of magnitude hotter than chemical temperatures. While physical objects will withstand momentary exposure to 10,000 degrees, they vanish into plasma, just like that two ton concrete plug from <strong><em>your link</em></strong>, when you expose them to 10,000,000 degrees.<br /><br />If you want demonstration of an inability to comprehend relevant facts, these three of yours demonstrates it quite well.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You have yet to provide any effective counter to the results gleaned from experimental investigation.</font><br />Whoops! Here's a fouth case of your mental incompetence. You are unable to understand that to claim experimental evidence exists, you must ex

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>Despite of my desire to not respond, I will make this post to set the record straight and answer to your allegations that I have not presented experimental evidence directly related to Project Orion or associated evidence gleaned from studies conducted on data from nuclear tests.<br /><br />Project Orion: Life, Death and Possible Rebirth <br /><br />Relevant information presented:<br /><br />1) Synopsis of ablative tests using nuclear blasts involving graphite spheres which showed evidence for minimum ablative damage.<br /><br />2) Description of “Put-Put” test models and data suggesting designs for the pusher plate.<br /><br />3) Synopsis of thermal studies using explosive helium-fueled plasma generators to simulate temperature conditions showed that thermal damage would be minimal.<br /><br />4) Detailed operating parameters for an Orion craft including .1 kiloton launch bombs and 20 kiloton later-stage propulsion bombs.<br /><br />5) Caveats, advantages and unknowns surrounding the Orion concept of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.<br /><br />6) Descriptions of other testing and experiments conducted during, and relating to the subject of, the Orion Project.<br /><br /><br />Plumbob<br />Brownlee’s account <br /><br />Relevant information provided: <br /><br />1) Offered as a humorous description of the launching a manhole-cover sized projectile during a nuclear blast.<br /><br />2) Relevant only in that the projectile was not vaporized.<br /><br />3) The site from which the page was linked was referred to in response to interests concerning nuclear tests conducted by the United States. It is an archive of such data. (Nuclearweaponarchive.org)<br /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">stevewh32 - I'm still curious to see what Lost Packet will make of the concrete man hole cover example. </font><br /><br />In good nature, if you look at my posts and referrences to the Plumbob tests, I only posted those as humorous anecdotes. (I believe I indicated them to be as such in the body of my post.) I believe I may have mentioned the manhole cover once or so?(actually a steel cap plate placed inside the hole which held supports for an instrument package I believe) And, only in response to a question concerning the "vaporizing of pusherplate material" or some such. In any event, I certainly wouldn't call that test conclusive in regards to the infallibility of a pusher-plate design. Interesting but not conclusive.<br /><br />If I have mispoken, then please direct me to what I said on the matter. I hate having to switch back and forth between windows hunting stuff. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> However, if serious contention over the matter exists, I will do so in order to set the record straight. Np at all.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">..There is NOt the samel blast effect in space. There's only energy and highly energetic particles and plasma being blown away from the blast site, NOT an entire atmosphere at 14.7 PSI. Maybe Orion could put a mass of water ice between the pusher plate & the bomb to increase the propulsive effect? </font><br /><br />Quite right. I believe the finished design includes casings which would surround the propulsion bombs and could amplify their effect by providing extra reaction material. I read that somewhere.. I think. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (Get's confusing after having to go back and forth on it so many times.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">..I don't know of a single atomic blomb blast done in a vacuum, either, which would be the truest test of Orion's propulsive effects. </font><br /><br />There were atmospheric tests done which involved upper atmo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

packet <br />Are you trying to be dense or what? What gibberish are you quoting? How do you expect anyone to believe that you have tested this manhole cover for ablation when <strong><em>it was never found</em></strong> after the nuclear blast? Huh? Buy a clue, packet. <br /><br />That stupid video of yours is a chemical test, not a nuclear test. Can't you understand "relevant data"? <br /><br />Now you still haven't given two simultaneous tests, meaning they were separated by a second or a very few seconds. All you have to do is give the link, the names of the two tests, and their dates and times. That's all, packet. Then you'd win. The rest everything you're posting is a garbage smoke screen. You don't have experimental evidence unless you have at least two tests spaced a few seconds apart. Quit your histrionics and give us the straight skinny. <br /><br />Common guy! Use that head of yours for something besides a hatrack.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - packet Are you trying to be dense or what? What gibberish are you quoting? How do you expect anyone to believe that you have tested this manhole cover for ablation when it was never found after the nuclear blast? Huh? Buy a clue, packet. </font><br /><br />You're being obtuse. Where did I imply anything concerning that flying "manhole cover?" What is your problem? Are you so intent on just lambasting me that you ignore reality? Are you mentally warped, emotionally unstable or just don't give a damn? Here is the sum total of my statements concerning the manhole cover:<br /><br /><font color="orange">1) a_lost_packet_ - Even though I originally jumped in the thread because of interests in shielding, this Orion thing has gotten me interested. So, I'm running through lists of nuclear tests. <br /><br />There were a number of underground tests to determine the feasibility of containing small yield underground nuclear blasts. I believe one of the posts earlier described the "flying manhole cover." There were actually two of these types of test (Pascal A + B) which used a concrete casement and structures within that were not designed to act as a plug, but ended up trying really hard to. <br /><br />Here's a link to the tests: Plumbob (great site btw)<edit -link omitted /> <br /><br />A couple of humorous snips from the page:<br /><i><< edit - Direct accounts of the Pascal A and Pascal B tests taken from the provided link and the humorous, coincidental consequences to the "manhole cover.>></i><br /><br />Fun stuff. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> </font><br /><br />AND<br /><br /><font color="orange">2) a_lost_packet_ - I agree that just because a "manhole cover" (collimeter plate?) achieved escape velocity it does not mean that it is applicable to the situation at hand. While it is possible that it survived, it is a moot point. We ain't got it to look at. However, the fact that it was deemed very probable that the</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jcdenton]

Wow! This is becoming quite an argument, one worthy enough to enter the annals of SDC. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">jcdenton - Wow! This is becoming quite an argument. One worthy enough to enter the annals of SDC. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> </font><br /><br />I truthfully hope not. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> While it is amusing, it is becoming tiresome.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />Well, I'll be hornswaggled. You really did find some simultaneous nuclear tests after all. Didn't think you had it in you, but you proved me wrong. Of course, they're on a questiontionable website, not an official government's website, but how about we give you their accuracy for the sake of argument? You need <strong><em>something</em></strong> to cling to; you can't be wrong <strong><em>all</em></strong> the time.<br /><br />The first thing wrong with your simultaneous blasts is that they're, well, too simultaneous. You see, I've been defining these tests as being spaced one to several seconds apart, and your tests were simultaneous. There were zero seconds beteen the blasts, and that does not match the Orion profile.<br /><br />The second thing wrong is that we still don't have your missing manhole cover, so we still can't look at it to see if it ablated or not or how much. You're still clinging to the idea that we have experimental evidence that Orion's pusher plate can survive the repeated nuclear blasts, but you'll have to chase that manhole cover to Alpha Centauri to find it.<br /><br />The next thing wrong is your put-put looks like it experienced suspiciously less than acceleration from zero to 56,000 meters per second in only 150 meters. You are using your put-put to lift the Orion people out of their tin hat status, but it obviously falls <strong><em>way</em></strong> short of the mark.<br /><br />Ok. You're doing better. You found some simultaneous tests. Now you need to find some tests that are not quite that simultaneous. Then you need to find some material that survived these tests and evaluate them for ablation.<br /><br />Be careful about their distance from the blasts. Remember that from your own links Orion needs them to be 3.5 meters, about 10 feet, from space zero. Your railroad bridge isn't going to help you because it was 1,800 feet from the blast, singular blast, which is 180 times as far away as the Orion pusher plate will be.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - packet Well, I'll be hornswaggled. You really did find some simultaneous nuclear tests after all. Didn't think you had it in you, but you proved me wrong. </font><br /><br />I provided that information long ago. The only difference being that I pasted the information from the document to a post in this thread in my last post in response to your continued accusations to the contrary. You could have performed the search easily enough given that I previously included the search terminology in my post associated with the link.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - Of course, they're on a questiontionable website, not an official government's website, but how about we give you their accuracy for the sake of argument?</font><br /><br />The accuracy of the information presented stands on its own merit. The document source is from "OKLAHOMA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OBSERVATORY" (which is titled on the first page.) In case you wonder <i>why</i> the USGS affiliated agency would be cataloging nuclear blasts the answer is simple. They have the instrumentation capable of monitoring the seismic activity in the area. When they get a spike in the vicinity of testing grounds, they follow up with inquiries regarding testing if they have not already been informed. It's standard procedure. However, if that is not enough for you then you can follow this link:<br /><br /> NV. DOE U.S. Nuclear Tests, July 45 - Sept 92<br /><br />I provided this link in the <b>same post</b> as I provided the OK. GSO report to futher support the documentation of simultaneous nuclear-blast experiments. You may search this PDF file using the name of the test present in the GSO report. For instance, if you do a search in the PDF on Natches, as indicated in the GSO report as a simultaneous test (SS1), you will find a short description under the proje <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">all I have done is support the claim that the ablative and thermal tests conducted during the Orion Project were valid</font><br />For the tests to be valid, the materials would have to be examined after the test. Exactly which test was it that was valid, packet? Was it the test where two tons of concrete ablated into a superheated plasma in 31 miliseconds, or the test where the manhole cover left the test site at six times Earth's escape velocity, never to be seen again? Which one of those two are you claiming was the successful test for resistance to ablation?<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">these specific tests have no bearing on Orion.</font><br />I am glad you finally recognize that there is no experimental evidence supporting Orion.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">you will find a few test blasts with small separation times.</font><br />Ok! Now we're getting somewhere. What were the names of the tests, along with their dates and times? Of course, since you're using this to support the contention that materials can withstand repeated exposures to closely spaced nuclear blasts, it would help if the two tests were at the same location.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">I have made the same statement concerning the manhole cover. However, we do have evidence that it survived the initial blast.</font><br />Look honey, it doesn't help your case to say it could have survived the blast. You're trying to convince everyone that the manhole cover experienced no ablation. You have to find it before you can make that claim. Until you do, your project Orion is just barroom speculation.<br /> <br />"<font color="yellow">If you wish to deny that the ablative and thermal testing which was done during Project Orion is invalid</font><br />It couldn't have been tested packet if none of the materials survived the test! The concrete plug that was at the distance from the blast specified in you