A diamond hull will not be enough!

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - It's been two days packet. Thought the better of it? </font><br /><br />I'm sorry maddad. I didn't realize you were hanging on my every word. Did my brief absence cause you so much distress? I've been slightly busy and haven't even had the briefest of moments, which is all it takes to respond to your posts, in order to visit this thread.<br /><br />I'll see what latest fabrications you have managed to invent and respond to them accordingly.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - I did not propose this test; steve and packet did.</font><br /><br />That is a blatant lie. Prove it maddad. Show where I proposed such a preposterous thing. Prove it. The "evidence" for your outrageous claim must surely lie within this thread. So, post it. You can't because you are lying.<br /><br />I challenge you to post any quotes, in context, from any of my posts that prove this fantasy of yours. Is lying your last refuge in this discussion maddad? That's pretty weak.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - ..but steve and packet felt that it would be enough to invalidate the Orion hypothesis. </font><br /><br />Wow. Another whopper of a lie. You don't have any other recourse than to propogate this fantasy of yours? Prove your allegation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - The effects of close exposure to a nuclear blast would vaporize a minimum of four pounds of this resistant steel. Remember that all the concrete ablated. Would ten tons have ablated if ten tons had been there? We don't know because it wasn't really a controlled experiement, it was just an observation. So we can accept that at least four pounds of steel would ablate, and realize that probably much more would go. </font><br /><br />Where do you get your numbers from maddad? At least I have the decency to post referrences. You just seem to be talking out of the side of your mouth. What is "close exposure?" Back up your claims with referrences. Considering your record in this thread, I wouldn't rely on you to judge an appropriate level for sunscreen, much less, referrences to distances from nuclear detonations. You are amusing me.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - It's little wonder that steve and packet agreed that the ablation of the two tons of concrete in 31 milliseconds was crucial to the validity of Orion. If that much concrete ablates that fast from a single close nuclear blast, then there's no way that the Orion</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

stevehw33<br />"<font color="yellow">Tthe only thing which is being proven here by M-D is that the horse cannot sing.</font><br />He'll sing real high with a nuke under his tail.<br /><br />eburacum45<br />"<font color="yellow">Freeman Dyson was speaking about the ablation of the metal pusher plate, and he said he had calculated this to be on the order of a thousandth of an inch per explosion.</font><br />Uh-huh. Under what conditions? We don't know, do we? And we don't know his motivations for saying what he said, even if we are in awe of his brilliance. But we do know that two tons of concrete vaporizing in 31 milliseconds is a tad more that a thousanth of an inch. Calculate that.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">eburacum45 - ...But the decision to cancel the Orion Project was both inevitable and correct; it would have led to the mass production of cheap bombs and unchecked nuclear proliferation. </font><br /><br />I agree. There was also the possibility that we did not have enough fissionable material available at the time. The material needed to create the propulsion bombs may have impacted producting during the "Cold War" era. That could have been another contributing factor to it's demise. Not to mention, we are talking about a craft, which in it's largest phase, could have been the size of a shopping mall. The Orion project was originally funded under a defense fund. However, because of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which banned above-ground nuclear tests for military purposes, the project needed to be reclassified for available funding. At that time, the newly developed NASA program was already gobbling up civil space-race funds at an alarming rate. There wasn't enough room for both projects and considering that NASA was well on it's way to developing a viable Moon program, Orion had nowhere to turn for funding. Ineligible for further study under military programs due to the Treaty and no further funding available in the civil sector, there was no choice.<br /><br />Would it have worked? Well, it's very possible that some of the last hurdles could have been overcome. However, none of them involved ablation damage from NPP blasts or thermal degradation of the pusher-plate according to the tests performed during the Project.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen that program you mentioned. It sounds like it may have been interesting. That period of history was indeed an age where man was taming the dragon of nuclear power. Combine that with the all encompassing cold-war-space-race and they would have been "interesting times" indeed.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

"<font color="yellow">Would it have worked? Well, it's very possible that some of the last hurdles could have been overcome.</font><br /><br />Like not having a spaceship after the first bomb?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

LOL<br /><br />Maddad, you are an amusing fellow. All of those challenges for you to prove your allegations in referrence to some mythical agreement that I made and you just walk right by and ignore them. Instead, you post a response to a post that had nothing to do with you. LOL<br /><br />So, I will interpret your lack of a rejoinder to my allegation that you are consistantly lying as an admission of same on your part.<br /><br />Thank you for admitting that you have lied maddad. It is refreshing to know that even you can admit your mistakes!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

Maddad<br />"<font color="Lime">I did not propose this test; steve and packet did.</font>"<br />packet<br />"<font color="yellow">That is a blatant lie. Prove it maddad. Show where I proposed such a preposterous thing. Prove it.</font><br />Ok. You're on.<br /><br />steve 10/29/04 02:07 PM<br />"<font color="orange">OK, Packet, just one question. Maddad wrote that when they were testing an Orion type system, they used a nuclear blast and it ablated a 'concrete plug in less than 31 ms." <br /><br />Is that true? I await your considered response. As MAddad gave no references at all about it, and yours are always sterling, I'd appreciate your comments on just this one point, as it's the crucial one. IF concrete does NOT ablate much in the tests, and your references show this, viz., when exposed to a nuclear blast, then the issue is settled.</font><br /><br />packet<br />In the following posts I discovered that you were indeed objecting to the validity of this test rather than going along with it. Good show; I was incorrect in saying that you and steve proposed it. He did and you objected. You could though have saved us both some pain by posting a couple sentences of your respose, just as I posted steve's above.<br /><br />I will however accept steve's judgment of the significance of the observations. They invalidate your Orion hypothesis, whether you think so or not. Just because they were not called Orion experiments does not invalidate what they demonstrated: that your idea cannot work.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - In the following posts I discovered that you were indeed objecting to the validity of this test rather than going along with it. <b>Good show; I was incorrect in saying that you and steve proposed it. He did and you objected. You could though have saved us both some pain by posting a couple sentences of your respose, just as I posted steve's above. </b></font><br /><br />Maddad, I did not make a false claim about a statement you made. However, you made a claim that I said something which I did not say. Therefore, I asked you to "Prove it." I asked you to "Show me where I ever said that." You did not. Perhaps you could have taken the hint that something may be amiss when I repeatedly and heatedly asked you to prove your allegation?<br /><br />So, what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to copy and paste every post I made in regards to the Pascal A+B tests in hopes that one of them will contain the exact verbiage that you misinterpreted? Honestly, is that what I was supposed to do?<br /><br />Maddad, you made the claim regarding my post. I had no idea what the heck you were talking about because such a claim was never made by me. There is no blame on my part for the misunderstanding. Perhaps if you had gone to such lengths the first time I asked you to "Show me where I said that." then the bickering over that issue would have been long past.<br /><br />Thank you for being good enough to put this issue at rest. I respect your action by answering it directly and explaining that it was misinterpreted.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad -They invalidate your Orion hypothesis, whether you think so or not. Just because they were not called Orion experiments does not invalidate what they demonstrated: that your idea cannot work. </font><br /><br />The Pascal tests had absolutely nothing in common with tests, experiments and investigations conducted during Orion other than being associated with "nuclear" blasts.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">The Pascal tests had absolutely nothing in common with tests, experiments and investigations conducted during Orion other than being associated with "nuclear" blasts.</font><br /><br />Sure they did. They showed one example of ablation that disproves your Orion contention that nuclear blasts cannot ablate the pressure plate. Now, if your panties are still in a bunch over the difference in materials, distances, and yields then you're at liberty to post your own calculations.

 

[mcbethcg]

Maddad, I have noticed in my short life that concrete and certain metals have different physical properties. I assume that it's one of the reasons why we never see concrete hammers, concrete drill bits, or concrete frying pans, and why they are usually made of steel.<br /><br />If you make a rifle out of concrete, and it disintigrates in a millisecond, it is not proof that a steel rifle will not work.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">a_lost_packet_-"The Pascal tests had absolutely nothing in common with tests, experiments and investigations conducted during Orion other than being associated with "nuclear" blasts."</font><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - They showed one example of ablation that disproves your Orion contention that nuclear blasts cannot ablate the pressure plate. </font><br /><br />By the way, the "concrete plug was not a "pressure plate."<br /><br />Noone ever said that a nuclear blast <i>can't</i> ablate a pressure plate. What was said was that given certain circumstances including materials, distance, yield and engineering design, the ablation would be minimal and it would be a "non-issue" in severity in regards to mission survivability.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - Now, if your panties are still in a bunch over the difference in materials, distances, and yields then you're at liberty to post your own calculations. </font><br /><br />Hmm.. I seem to remember posting reams of information which was derived directly from the investigations and experiments conducted during the Orion Project. Remember all that? Temperature considerations, plasma, distance, the shielding effect of heated gases etc etc.. Does any of that sound familiar? You don't remember me discusing those issues in previous posts on this thread? Is all that matters the individual opinion against the experimental evidence? I do not look at such things without question. However, I also do not perform calculation to determine if, as I arise in the morning, gravity is functioning normally. I rely on past experience and the knowledge of those who are intimately familiar with the subject matter.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

You're quibbling, packet. It's like you've got a hellfire missile fired at a piece of paper. Surprisingly, the paper burns all the way through. You are trying to convince us that the hellfire missile can't burn through a tough piece of paper, so you show us some cardboard and point out that there's no comparisison between paper and cardboad. You're waving your hands and saying that since the cardboard will be five feet away from the hellfire missile instead of a direct hit, the cardboard obviously can't burn. After all, your cardboad is <strong><em>designed</em></strong> to resist the flame of a cigarette lighter.<br /><br />Test it packet. Fire that hellfire missile at the cardboard to see if it burns or not.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">I seem to remember posting reams of information</font><br />Yeah. Reams. Not a concise sentence or two; reams. Why? Because you cannot understand what you're reading, so you paste in the entire webpage into your post, hoping that something on it will be construed as supporting your case. If you understood what you were reading then a quoted sentence or two would be sufficient. Understanding it though should start with reading it first. You are so excited to find something that ought to agree with your fantasy that you highlight and paste reams into your post, but then forget to read what you posted. That's why you have to ask me to go find the supporting information for you. I do. In the material that you provided.<br /><br />Before you pee yourself in your next burst of pasting, take a moment to read the page first. Then just paste that part of the page that makes your point.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maddad - It's like you've got a hellfire missile fired at a piece of paper. Surprisingly, the paper burns all the way through. You are trying to convince us that the hellfire missile can't burn through a tough piece of paper, so you show us some cardboard and point out that there's no comparisison between paper and cardboad.</font><br /><br />Uh. So, you're saying that a few feet of poured concrete slab which is only a few feet in diameter is comparable to a (Probable construction and size depending on the Orion model used) aluminum alloy plate, many feet thick and which is the diameter of a large building? I hate to break it to you, but the concrete slab you enjoy discussing and the pusher plate, which is designed for use as such, are constructed with completely different materials and intents.<br /><br /><font color="orange">a_lost_packet_ - I seem to remember posting reams of information.</font>/sarcasm on in context btw)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - Yeah. Reams. Not a concise sentence or two; reams. Why? Because you cannot understand what you're reading, so you paste in the entire webpage into your post, hoping that something on it will be construed as supporting your case. If you understood what you were reading then a quoted sentence or two would be sufficient. Understanding it though should start with reading it first. You are so excited to find something that ought to agree with your fantasy that you highlight and paste reams into your post, but then forget to read what you posted. That's why you have to ask me to go find the supporting information for you. I do. In the material that you provided. </font><br /><br />First: The overwhelming majority of the information that I have provided is written by my own hand and in my own words. I do not "cut and paste" large volumes of text as habit. As a matter of fact, I have stated that I detest doing so at least once or twice in this thread. However, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">you're saying that a few feet of poured concrete slab which is only a few feet in diameter is comparable to a (Probable construction and size depending on the Orion model used) aluminum alloy plate, many feet thick and which is the diameter of a large building?</font><br />I am saying that your contention that no significant ablation takes place is disproven. Two tons of concrete ablated, with plenty of indication that the only reason more didn't vaporize was because that's all there was. I hate to break it to you, but four thousand pounds of concrete is more than your thin layer of grease you think will defeat ablation. Your Orion fantasy is disproven.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">I understand the material far better than you do.</font><br />Can you hear my signature line? What math have you provided to demonstrate your understanding? I've given plenty to show mine. Your output is what, zero? That means your understanding, compared to mine, is zero. Understand that.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"You're one tough dude, Lost Packet..."</font><br /><br />Get a room! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

centsworth_II<br />"<font color="yellow">You're one tough dude, Lost Packet...<br />Get a room!</font><br /><br />*BOL*

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">a_lost_packet_-..you're saying that a few feet of poured concrete slab which is only a few feet in diameter is comparable to a (Probable construction and size depending on the Orion model used) aluminum alloy plate, many feet thick and which is the diameter of a large building?</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - I am saying that your contention that no significant ablation takes place is disproven... </font><br /><br />If the team members were investigating ablation damage on concrete slabs used for mounting test instruments within shafts constructed for underground nuclear blasts such as those detailed in the Pascal A+B tests... then I'd say that you were correct. Otherwise.. your statement doesn't apply to the question of ablation damage to a NPP pusher plate of entirely different construction and under entirely different conditions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - I hate to break it to you, but four thousand pounds of concrete is more than your thin layer of grease you think will defeat ablation.</font><br /><br />The "grease" proposal was not designed to totally defeat ablation. It was designed to help mitigate damage. In plasma tests approximating the expected conditions at the base of the pusher plate it proved effective at doing so.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maddad - Your Orion fantasy is disproven. </font><br /><br />Step back for a moment. You have even said that no functional experimental models of the Orion NPP system have ever been tested. A point which I agree on and, I believe, I was the first to point out this fact. It is obvious that there is alot of data which is in favor of the system being, theoretically, possible. You have argued that the testing was not relevent. (In the few portions of your posts where you actually mentioned any of the tests associated with Orion.)<br /><br />So, if you have argued that the tests are not relevent, how do you come to the concl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">stevewh33 - You're one tough dude, Lost Packet to put up with this sort of stuff from Maddog, but hey, it's probably one way you sharpen your fine intellectual cutting edge and far be it from me to suggest other methods.. </font><br /><br />I just don't back down from people who use bullying tactics as a substitution for rational debate. "He who yells loudest, wins." isn't in my book of quotes to live by.<br /><br />This thread has become more of an excersize at argumentative skills than any form which would be beneficial for honing one's "intellectual cutting edge." I continue to be amused by it though. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Once again, guys, if this love fest is going to continue, take it inside and spare us the sight! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Image not approved yet, but I can't wait!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Now I see it!<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Just rattling the cage. I'll not argue with you over who's inside and who's out. I know there's no hope of agreement on that point! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Or who gets the reach around!

 

[Maddad]

packet<br />"<font color="yellow">your statement doesn't apply to the question of ablation damage to a NPP pusher plate of entirely different construction</font><br />If you have different numbers to offer, then you are at liberty to do so. Since you have not, for months, you remain disproven.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">The "grease" proposal was not designed to totally defeat ablation.</font><br />Yeah, like a long sleve shirt will not totally defeat a huricane.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">no functional experimental models of the Orion NPP system have ever been tested.</font><br />Correct. Sine you Orion boys are making the claim that nuclear bombs cannot ablate the metal pressure plate, you are the ones who must provide proof. You have not, and are disproven.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You have yet to refute any of the investigative or experimental returns evidenced by the presented findings of Project Orion.</font><br />Why should I refute the only evidence you have ever offered: Orion will not work because the materials will ablate. You offered the evidence that disproves your contention, so of course I choose not to dispute it.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">You've presented an indelicate argument loosely based on Wien's Law </font><br />It's called math, packet. You wouldn't understand since you've never used any yourself.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">proving the already proven: That expanding gas caused by a nuclear blast is very powerful.</font><br />Because you do not understand math, you did not understand the point of that post. It wasn't that a nuke is powerful; it was that a nuke is about heat, not blast. The blast is secondary.

 

[mcbethcg]

Maddad, how does any of what you say disprove anything?<br /><br />The presented evidence is sufficient proof for ME that Orion could work. Heck, the fact that Freeman Dyson, a world-renowned nuclear physicist thought it would work is enough proof for me that it would probably work. <br /><br />You have differing standards of the required proof- thats fine. You think the presented evidence is insufficient to prove anything- that's fine too. But even you (if you are rational) ought to agree that insufficient evidence that something might work is not evidence that it will not work.

 

[Maddad]

mcbethcg<br />The discussion focused on whether significant ablation had taken place. Sure, concrete isn't steel. But if a tremendous amount of concrete ablation takes place then a significant abount of steel ablation will take place under similar conditions.<br /><br />By the way, packet's idea of greasing the pusher plate increases ablation rather than decrease it. The ablation is a consequence of primary heating, not the secondary heating by the fireball. The grease will change the steel's color to black, which will cause it to reflect fewer photons and therefore heat more.<br /><br />People keep talking about Dyson, but we do not know his motivations, and we've not seen his calculations. Even a really smart mother is capable of making a mistake. You release your data and calculations so that others may check them and reproduce your experiments. Additionally, Project Orion represents a great deal of money should it become funded. Money has always been a motivator, and Dyson would stand to be on the receiving end should this project gather steam. Just because Dyson is smart, we should not abandon critical thinking.<br /><br />The presented evidence is sufficient that great ablatement takes place. For Orion to work, you have to get that ablatement down to not much more than zero. packet's problem is that the methods he uses to do so also degrade the propulsive effect. You cannot propose to move the blast source back several hundred meters because then you do not get much pushing. packet's saying that Dyson ran calculations. That's great. Where are they so we can check them? For that matter where are the calculations showing how much acceleration each blast will impart to a very massive Orion? The size of the blasts are important because packet wants to cut down on the number of them. Well, if you cut down on their numbers, then you're cutting down on their effective pushing power. And he's still not dealt with the issue that he's going to shake Orion ap