External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<p>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021516_2000013018.pdf</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img src="file:///C:/Users/Kevin/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p301/glactus/orionsco.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1260/839352176_3b061e1a4e.jpg?v=0" alt="" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/NASA-project-orion-artist.jpg/750px-NASA-project-orion-artist.jpg" border="0" alt="Image:NASA-project-orion-artist.jpg" width="750" height="600" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<em>Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Volume I -- Summary</em><p>&nbsp;</p><p> <em>Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Volume III -- Conceptual Vehicle Designs And Operational Systems</em></p><p> <em>Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Volume IV -- Mission Velocity Requirements And System Comparisons</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><em>Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Volume IV -- Mission Velocity Requirements And System Comparisons (Supplement)</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<div id="item"><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="5"><font size="6">The Spaceship that Almost Was</font></font></strong></font></div><div id="item"><br />http://www.unmuseum.org/orionproject.htm</div><div id="item">&nbsp;</div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="570"><tbody><tr><td class="storyTtl">The Road Not Taken (Yet)

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<br /><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="570"><tbody><tr><td class="storyTtl">The New Space Race?

 

[hal9891]

I just love this term, it so conveniently avoids using words "nuclear" and "explosion".<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div style="text-align:center"><font style="color:#808080" color="#999999"><font size="1">"I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them"</font></font><br /></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>

the Moon? It wouldn't be the first time America has had such a surprise, now would it? &nbsp; <br />Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup[/QUOTE</p><p>Just protecting the electronics of this ship from the source-region EMP would be quite a challenge.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />P <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baulten]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> the Moon? It wouldn't be the first time America has had such a surprise, now would it? &nbsp; Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup[/QUOTEJust protecting the electronics of this ship from the source-region EMP would be quite a challenge.P <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />Hum, you know, I've never seen this issue acknowledged and solved.&nbsp; The pusher plate on a pulse propulsion system wouldn't prevent the electromagnetic pulse from nuclear detonations from reaching the ship's electronics, would it?

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hum, you know, I've never seen this issue acknowledged and solved.&nbsp; The pusher plate on a pulse propulsion system wouldn't prevent the electromagnetic pulse from nuclear detonations from reaching the ship's electronics, would it? <br />Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>No, it probably would not, and source region EMP is much more difficult to protect against than is the EMP from a high altitude burst than is typically discussed.&nbsp; Source-region EMP currents can be huge.&nbsp; It is easy to protect against the usual far-field pulse that results from the Compton effect high in the atmosphere, but it is very difficult to protect against source-region effects.&nbsp;&nbsp; Near the fireball there are a lot of electrons flying around.&nbsp; The x-ray flux can be pretty intense too.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p>I'm one of the few critics of this concept since it seems widely popular among most folks, especially here at SDC. The reason I'm a critic of it does not stem so much from the technical side. But from the cost. Cost that is not addressed in any of the literature I've seen on the project including that posted here.</p><p>I have a book called "The Starflight Handbook" which covered Orion in some detail. The most striking of which is the number of nuclear bombs required. The book estimated 3 million to 300 million nukes would be required.</p><p>The arms race produced some 50,000 nuclear bombs between two nations over the course of half a century costing hundreds of billions of dollars. This was data for the Orion starship proposal which pretty much renders that proposal impractical if not impossible.</p><p>Below is data for the Orion interplanetary proposal.</p><p>http://astronautix.com/lvs/orietary.htm</p><p><font color="#008000">Launch would have been from the Atomic Energy Commission test site at Jackass Flats, Nevada. Initially 0.1 kiloton bombs would have been exploded behind the pusher plate at one second intervals. Once clear of the earth's atmosphere and radiation belts this would gradually increase until 20 kiloton bombs would be ignited every ten seconds. The 10,000 tonne ship would hold 2000 bombs and have a net payload of several thousand tonnes, sufficient to house a crew of 150 in comfort.</font></p><p>This one seems more reasonable from the nuclear explosive production point of view but, sequencing these explosions to go off at precisely the right time to avoid surges in velocity or offset thrust resulting from explosive duds would probably be a heck of a technical challenge.</p><p>Below is the starship link that has data similar to that in the book I referenced. Though it calls for 300,000 bombs at 1 megaton per bomb, this is still ten times what two nations produced in half a century of an arms race. NASA in the past nearly half century has not even been able to garner enough support for a manned mars mission using nuclear thermal propulsion technology. Its hard to imagine to say the least, getting public support for any Orion concept.</p><p>http://astronautix.com/lvs/oriative.htm</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'1</DIV></p><p><font size="5"><br /></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h1 align="center">A Chinese Project Orion</h1> <p> (Project Orion was a 1950s US program to design a heavy spaceship that could carry people to other planets in a reasonably time. The spaceship would be driven by exploding nuclear bombs behind it. In my Annotated Book List, I describe a wonderful book that George Dyson wrote about his father's involvement in the project.) </p> <p> The Orion Project thrived more than a half century ago. It is dead in the United States. However, in Spring 2004, it occurs to me that the Chinese government might want to undertake an Orion project. They could technically. </p> <p> The Chinese government might want one or more Orion spaceships carrying nuclear weapons. A single vessel, or several, would enable them to gain immediate military parity with the US. They could offer a promise of retaliation to Japan and South Korea if any neighbor attacked. Moreover, they could threaten to attack any US warship that came to defend Taiwan against mainland threats, without risking too much that the US would launch an all out nuclear attack. </p> <p> The Chinese could launch an Orion vehicle straight up to orbit beyond the distance of the moon. It need not cross the US. The distance would mean that a Chinese attack could not be undertaken quickly, which would comfort the US. (The US might well consider an Orion vehicle in low earth orbit as highly dangerous, since if it crossed over the US, it could launch a nuclear attack with almost no warning.) </p> <p> A distant orbit would also mean that a missile attacking the Orion vehicle would be visible for a long time. Either it could be destroyed, or the Orion vehicle could simply turn its pusher plate towards it, so when the attacker exploded, the Orion vehicle would simply experience a shove as it did during launch. Contemporary laser and particle beam weapons are too weak to have much effect on an Orion vehicle. </p> <p> The US would, of course, build and launch its own Orion vehicles, but design and construction might take several years. In the meantime, the Chinese government could aim for `re-unification' with Taiwan both by intimidating Taiwan more strongly than now, and by offering more benefits for accepting mainland colonization. </p> <p> Possibly, mainland China could take over Taiwan. Certainly, the goal is one that the Chinese government supports. The issue for it is risk and cost. Is it worth bringing the `rebel' province to heel? </p> <p> For the Chinese, an Orion project would provide it with a way to intimidate Taiwan, a way to gain strategic parity with the US, and a way to offer Chinese scientists, as well as scientists from other countries, a way to explore the solar system. </p> <p> Also, Orion spaceships would enable China to take control of the Spratly Islands and thereby reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Moreover, the government could talk about collecting solar energy in space and beaming it to earth as microwaves. (Only enemies of China would be concerned about the military implications of multi-gigawatt microwave beams.) </p> <p> Because of the radiation release, the US would not want to launch many Orion vehicles itself. Only after the US succeeded with the `Z-pinch' implosion technique being developed in Los Alamos, or an equivalent, would the US gain a relatively radiation-free trigger for its bombs. </p> <p> (Of course, Freeman Dyson might be right in thinking that relatively radiation-free bombs using plutonium, uranium, or other elements could be designed and built. If that is the case, the US could launch many Orion spaceships and the environmental questions would turn to the ozone layer, how many people and animals are blinded at each launch by the explosive flashes, and so on. Incidentally, Ted Taylor hopes Dyson is wrong. Taylor ran the Orion project, and before that designed both the largest and the smallest fission bombs the US exploded. He worries that someone could design bombs that require very little fissionable material, thus making proliferation much cheaper.) </p> <p> The main complication is getting replacement crews up to an Orion spaceship after it has been launched. Few want to try to land an Orion spaceship back on the earth (or splash it down in the ocean, a more likely `landing' spot). </p> <p> Nonetheless, crews must be replaced. Ordinary chemical rockets, for all their expense, might do. Or thermal nuclear rocket engines, such as those tested in the 1960s, might be developed into working vehicles. The US would probably use chemical rockets, at least initially. One problem with nuclear thermal rockets is that they release fission products into their exhaust. </p> <p> As far as we know, the Chinese are working only on chemical rockets. But if they did go for an Orion project, then it would make sense for them to design and build nuclear thermal rockets as `shuttles' to carry people from the surface of the earth to Orion vehicles, and not to worry about the radiation release. </p> <p> In 1958, the people in the Orion Project thought they would be exploring the rings of Saturn by 1970. As George Dyson said, unlike nuclear weapons, where the design process was more interesting than the outcome, in the Orion project, the outcome would be more interesting than the design process. </p><p>http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/chinese-orion.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baulten]

qso1 has a good point.&nbsp; I love the idea, and think it is a perfectly viable method, but not one that will ever happen.&nbsp; I'd rather see research in something like the Nuclear Saltwater Rocket in any case.&nbsp; Shouldn't internal nuclear reactions provide more over performance than external pulses?&nbsp; After all, you don't see us using "chemical pulse propulsion rockets" do you?

 

[qso1]

<p>That was the one technical issue I was concerned about. Why not continuous nuclear. But in a way, Orion would be continuous to a casual observer because the blasts occur so rapidly. This lead to wondering if its even possible because its never been demonstrated that nuclear explosions can be set off at such a rapid pace. Vogon 13 pointed out about a year ago that Orion had been updated but I cannot recall exactly how. Seems Bussard (Bussard ramjet physicist) was involved.</p><p>By the time we get to where we can do outer planet manned missions and interstellar missions. I suspect propulsion will be radically different than what we see in interplanetary/stellar concepts today.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

A Chinese Project Orion would be even tougher for China than it would be for the U.S. and Russia. China has nowhere near the actual demonstrated experience of bomb building that the U.S. and Russia has. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm one of the few critics of this concept... Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>Count me among the critics! It falls into the cateogory of unadvisable rocket science, IMHO.&nbsp; </p><p>Other than the huge techical hurdles glossed over by its advocate, do we really want a hundred nuclear exlosions per mission?&nbsp; Direct radiation, EMP and fall out would be not only unacceptable but catastrophic in this day and age.&nbsp; And a good thing too!&nbsp; I am all for space travel but not at any cost.</p><p>The best book on this bizarre concept until now has been George Dyson's <em>Project Orion: The Atomic Spaceship 1957-1965</em>. It's good to see one of the primary material now available.<br /><br />Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Count me among the critics! It falls into the cateogory of unadvisable rocket science, IMHO.&nbsp; Other than the huge techical hurdles glossed over by its advocate, do we really want a hundred nuclear exlosions per mission?&nbsp; Direct radiation, EMP and fall out would be not only unacceptable but catastrophic in this day and age.&nbsp; And a good thing too!&nbsp; I am all for space travel but not at any cost.The best book on this bizarre concept until now has been George Dyson's Project Orion: The Atomic Spaceship 1957-1965. It's good to see one of the primary material now available.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>What ?&nbsp; You have a problem with a lift-off that includes over&nbsp;one nuclear explosion per second above ground and in the atmosphere ?&nbsp; How narrow-minded !<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

It would make sense out in interstellar space, though, wouldn't it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would make sense out in interstellar space, though, wouldn't it? <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>First you have to get it&nbsp;there.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you have to get it&nbsp;there. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV>I thought so, thank you.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you have to get it&nbsp;there. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p>Deployed and assembled in orbit using several Titan IV, Delta4 or Falcons9&nbsp; launch vehicles.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Deployed and assembled in orbit using several Titan IV, Delta4 or Falcons9&nbsp; launch vehicles. <br />Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup</DIV></p><p><br />&nbsp;You might have a hard time putting up a Titan IV.&nbsp; The infrastructure to make them is gone.&nbsp; And it would take more than several.&nbsp; Delta IV heavy has a LEO capability of 50,000 lb and Falcon 9 heavy a bit more.&nbsp; The problems with Falcon 9 is that it doesn't exist.</p><p>If you are looking at something like the mid-range Orion you are talking about roughly 1000 tons (2,000,000 lb), plus whatever would be required to assemble the thing.&nbsp; That is a rather substantial effort.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought so, thank you. <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2"><img src="http://solar-photon.net/PO-9106-SAVE/img134.imageshack.us/img134/5397/arma60pulsexd5.jpg" border="0" alt="[image] " /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kevin_J_waldroup]

<p align="right"><font face="Verdana" size="1"><strong><br /></strong></font><font face="Arial" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p>&nbsp; This is the Atomic Pulse Rocket, a pot-bellied spaceship nearly the size of the Empire State Building, propelled by a series of atomic blasts. The enormous rocket (weighing 75,000 tons fully loaded) is designed to leave Earth with a thrust of 100,000 tons. Altogether a thousand atomic blasts&mdash;each equal to 1,000 tons of TNT&mdash;are fired from a low velocity gun into a heavy steel rocket engine at a rate of one per second until the vehicle leaves Earth's atmosphere. Then steam and vaporized steel from the combustion chamber maintain the thrust. Inside the rocket, living quarters are situated in the rim of a pressurized wheel-like cabin which revolves to provide artificial gravity. Tubular hydroponic "gardens" along the rim produce oxygen and high-protein food<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">This is the Atomic Pulse Rocket, a pot-bellied spaceship nearly the size of the Empire State Building, propelled by a series of atomic blasts. The enormous rocket (weighing 75,000 tons fully loaded) is designed to leave Earth with a thrust of 100,000 tons. Altogether a thousand atomic blasts&mdash;each equal to 1,000 tons of TNT&mdash;are fired from a low velocity gun into a heavy steel rocket engine at a rate of one per second until the vehicle leaves Earth's atmosphere. Then steam and vaporized steel from the combustion chamber maintain the thrust. Inside the rocket, living quarters are situated in the rim of a pressurized wheel-like cabin which revolves to provide artificial gravity. Tubular hydroponic "gardens" along the rim produce oxygen and high-protein food <br /> Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup</font></p><p>Cool concept but the main problem I can see from a practical standpoint is that nobody to my knowledge has ever fired off nukes at the rate of one every second. The other being the sheer quantity of atomic bombs required, at least for the interstellar version of Orion. That number is around ten times what has been produced bomb wise by both the U.S. and Soviet Union IIRC.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>