Hmm i have an idea of what to do with those unused warheads.

[Valcan]

So we have alot of fissionable material right? We also have alot of warheads that need to disapear.

The answer lies right in front of us.

Yes you know what im talkin about. Orion!

I figure why not modern nuke warheads can be well reduced in there level of fallout. Plus with this we could put a ship/station/wtf ever we want weighin in at 8,000,000 ton 400meters wide.

See solving world nuke problems and bringin man to space.

And remember if anyone gets in your way...its for the children.

 

[Polishguy]

Illegal due to various test bans.

Impossible due to the fact that there is a significant environmentalist and anti-nuclear lobby...almost everywhere.

Difficult to fund because people won't see a need. Aside from a few space-colonization enthusiasts (who might not all support Orion), people will go on with the annoying chorus of "the money is better spent elsewhere."

 

[docm]

It'd be more fun to drop a few on Congress while saving two for Tehran and Pyongyang

 

[a_lost_packet_]

So we have alot of fissionable material right? We also have alot of warheads that need to disapear.

The answer lies right in front of us.

Yes you know what im talkin about. Orion!

I'm a big fan of Orion. I love the concept. But, I don't think we have enough warheads to do anything more than get it up into orbit. If we had a use for something the size of a battleship up in orbit, Orion would be a logical consideration.

See solving world nuke problems and bringin man to space.

And remember if anyone gets in your way...its for the children.

Well, even with "clean" weapon technology, there would be repercussions. There would have to be some very good and necessary reason to use something like Orion to get a craft into orbit. But, even for a mission to Mars its doubtful that we have enough material ready to produce that many charges. It would take a seriously intensive effort. Warheads simply can't be tossed under a pusher plate and lit off.

The delivery system has to be ironed out as well as the propulsion/reaction mass while in space. In the atmosphere, that's not as much of an issue. However, in space, it becomes critical - Nuke blasts alone won't do much in space. You need to react them with something. IIRC, certain plastics seemed to hold the most promise during Project Orion. Timing is also critical. You don't have time for much of a "do over" if there's a problem. There was a lot of work in regards to timing and having failsafes in case of a dud. They have to plan for everything as everything they have is going to be taken with them.. If your delivery system jams, you're screwed. During Project Orion, they actually visited soda can factories to see how they handled delivering so many cylinders with such efficiency. But, a pocket nuke ain't a soda can.

Still, it's one of the more cooler ideas that has come from desperate minds in regards to space exploration. I think that kind of "thinking outside of the box" is simply wonderfully entertaining stuff. It forces one to solve problems that one may never have had the possibility to encounter. It makes you "think." Innovation is everything because, everything is innovation. (Circuitous.. yes..) Sure, there would be serious issues to be overcome. But, despite protestations to the contrary.. it IS possible to do. If we set our minds to it, we could do it if we had to.

I don't think we'll be using it to spread the fallout from our nuclear arsenal over the entire globe though. At least, not today.

 

[Valcan]

So we have alot of fissionable material right? We also have alot of warheads that need to disapear.

The answer lies right in front of us.

Yes you know what im talkin about. Orion!

I'm a big fan of Orion. I love the concept. But, I don't think we have enough warheads to do anything more than get it up into orbit. If we had a use for something the size of a battleship up in orbit, Orion would be a logical consideration.

See solving world nuke problems and bringin man to space.

And remember if anyone gets in your way...its for the children.

Well, even with "clean" weapon technology, there would be repercussions. There would have to be some very good and necessary reason to use something like Orion to get a craft into orbit. But, even for a mission to Mars its doubtful that we have enough material ready to produce that many charges. It would take a seriously intensive effort. Warheads simply can't be tossed under a pusher plate and lit off.

The delivery system has to be ironed out as well as the propulsion/reaction mass while in space. In the atmosphere, that's not as much of an issue. However, in space, it becomes critical - Nuke blasts alone won't do much in space. You need to react them with something. IIRC, certain plastics seemed to hold the most promise during Project Orion. Timing is also critical. You don't have time for much of a "do over" if there's a problem. There was a lot of work in regards to timing and having failsafes in case of a dud. They have to plan for everything as everything they have is going to be taken with them.. If your delivery system jams, you're screwed. During Project Orion, they actually visited soda can factories to see how they handled delivering so many cylinders with such efficiency. But, a pocket nuke ain't a soda can.

Still, it's one of the more cooler ideas that has come from desperate minds in regards to space exploration. I think that kind of "thinking outside of the box" is simply wonderfully entertaining stuff. It forces one to solve problems that one may never have had the possibility to encounter. It makes you "think." Innovation is everything because, everything is innovation. (Circuitous.. yes..) Sure, there would be serious issues to be overcome. But, despite protestations to the contrary.. it IS possible to do. If we set our minds to it, we could do it if we had to.

I don't think we'll be using it to spread the fallout from our nuclear arsenal over the entire globe though. At least, not today.

Most of our nuclear weapons are far, far , far more powerful than the ones needed.

"The 'base design' consisted of a 4000 ton model planned for ground launch from Jackass Flats, Nevada. Each 0.15 kt of TNT (600 MJ) (sea-level yield) blast would add 30 mph (50 km/h, 13 m/s) to the craft's velocity. A graphite based oil would be sprayed on the pusher plate before each explosion to prevent ablation of the surface. To reach low Earth orbit (300 mi), this sequence would have to be repeated about 800 times, like an atomic pogo stick."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... propulsion)

As for the need well theres that stop city sized rocks from ending life among other things. Plus theres the fact that one launch would pump our abilities in space 100 fold.

I just think there would be alot more pluses to such a launch vehicle than minuses. As for the treaties it can be explained and shown that such a launch would be in ALL of humanities best interest as well as the Earths itself.

For a 4,000ton ship to LEO it would take 800 .14kt bombs and would have a payload of 1,600t to LEO. For a 10,000 ton ships it would take 800 .35kt bombs. And it would have a payload of 6,100 tons.

The weight of the space station is almost 760,000lbs
That means the 10,000 ton Orion ship would have a total payload of over 14 ISS stations. And we have ALOT of nukes trust me we have still several thousand military grade nuclear warheads worth of plutonium here in the US alone.

 

[neutrino78x]

So we have alot of fissionable material right? We also have alot of warheads that need to disapear.

The answer lies right in front of us.

Yes you know what im talkin about. Orion!

No way. They need to be destroyed. They are a threat to mankind. Most Trident vets would probably not agree with me, but my opinion is that we and the Russians need to destroy our nuclear arsenals. It is a crime against humanity to maintain the ability to destroy the world.

As long as the warheads exist, they are a threat.

--Brian (former Trident submarine enlisted sonar tech (yes, sonar is in the weapons department.))

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...That means the 10,000 ton Orion ship would have a total payload of over 14 ISS stations. And we have ALOT of nukes trust me we have still several thousand military grade nuclear warheads worth of plutonium here in the US alone.

It's not getting it into orbit that I would be concerned about. It's going anywhere substantial after that. We can get it into orbit, as I said. (If we had a use for orbiting something that big.) But, going anywhere else is going to be difficult if not impossible with what we have right now. It would take a monumental effort and would end up being an arsenal of weapons greater than the combined stockpiles of the US and USSR, IIRC, to get to someplace like Mars with it.

 

[Valcan]

So we have alot of fissionable material right? We also have alot of warheads that need to disapear.

The answer lies right in front of us.

Yes you know what im talkin about. Orion!

No way. They need to be destroyed. They are a threat to mankind. Most Trident vets would probably not agree with me, but my opinion is that we and the Russians need to destroy our nuclear arsenals. It is a crime against humanity to maintain the ability to destroy the world.

As long as the warheads exist, they are a threat.

--Brian (former Trident submarine enlisted sonar tech (yes, sonar is in the weapons department.))

Brian im not berating you or anything but lets say ok.

The US gets rid of its nukes...then russia...or wait at the same time.
Then theres China, india, pakistan, North korea, iran, probably syria and whoever else decides to do it in the interum.

A nuclear free world sadly is to me as impossible as a violence free world. As long as there are men there will be war. So this would at least get rid of them.

 

[Valcan]

...That means the 10,000 ton Orion ship would have a total payload of over 14 ISS stations. And we have ALOT of nukes trust me we have still several thousand military grade nuclear warheads worth of plutonium here in the US alone.

It's not getting it into orbit that I would be concerned about. It's going anywhere substantial after that. We can get it into orbit, as I said. (If we had a use for orbiting something that big.) But, going anywhere else is going to be difficult if not impossible with what we have right now. It would take a monumental effort and would end up being an arsenal of weapons greater than the combined stockpiles of the US and USSR, IIRC, to get to someplace like Mars with it.

Emm let me check i dont think so but let me see.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... propulsion)

Well if you look at that page down a little it says it accually wouldnt take all that many. Easily within the US current stockpile of warheads. Thats not even adding the stockpiles of plutonium and HEU.

For instance it says 5,300 tons to Mars orbit. And thats with 1960s tech.

 

[neutrino78x]

Brian im not berating you or anything but lets say ok.

The US gets rid of its nukes...then russia...or wait at the same time.
Then theres China, india, pakistan, North korea, iran, probably syria and whoever else decides to do it in the interum.

A nuclear free world sadly is to me as impossible as a violence free world. As long as there are men there will be war. So this would at least get rid of them.

If the aim is to get rid of them, why not simply destroy them, rather than handle them in a way in which they are still able to be used as weapons? Especially since this idea stages the warheads in space. The only effective way to eliminate the threat is to destroy the weapons.

--Brian

 

[Valcan]

Brian im not berating you or anything but lets say ok.

The US gets rid of its nukes...then russia...or wait at the same time.
Then theres China, india, pakistan, North korea, iran, probably syria and whoever else decides to do it in the interum.

A nuclear free world sadly is to me as impossible as a violence free world. As long as there are men there will be war. So this would at least get rid of them.

If the aim is to get rid of them, why not simply destroy them, rather than handle them in a way in which they are still able to be used as weapons? Especially since this idea stages the warheads in space. The only effective way to eliminate the threat is to destroy the weapons.

--Brian

Brian its not that. It the fact that really YOU cant get rid of the nuke gene. Its accually pretty primative tech by todays standards. It wont be going away.
And ther are threats just as bad or worse. Viruses, plagues, all kinds of horrible things. While i agree there are far to many warheads in the world especialy floating around. But i dont think we will ever get rid of them or weapons like'em. People like to blame the wars on weapons. But in many ways those nukes we and russia had stopped WW3. Russia never wanted MAD. They adopted it because we did, they had no choice. They still believe the old war is a continuation of diplomacy. If not for MAD the 1960s and even today could have seen millions of deaths in a yr in a new World war.

Thats off topic but to me the whole nukes in space thing is silly. If keeping a orion ship in orbit could help us divert a asteroid capable of enveloping the state of texas in a sheet of plasma and ending most life on earth when it hits i say go ahead.

 

[neutrino78x]

Brian its not that. It the fact that really YOU cant get rid of the nuke gene.

You didn't answer the question.

The goal is to get rid of the weapons. We have a treaty that says we are getting rid of the weapons, and we are in the process of getting rid of them.

My question was, why would you want to put nuclear warheads in space, still able to be used, when you could destroy them?

Thats off topic but to me the whole nukes in space thing is silly. If keeping a orion ship in orbit could help us divert a asteroid capable of enveloping the state of texas in a sheet of plasma and ending most life on earth when it hits i say go ahead.

Our nuclear arsenal as it stands is also quite capable of destroying most life on earth, at least most human life, which is all we really care about. Having nuclear weapons in orbit is a horrible idea. We could get to an asteroid without orion. There is VASIMR and other nuclear rockets.

--Brian

 

[EarthlingX]

Just a couple of side questions : When reducing number of ballistic missiles - where do rockets go ? Could those launchers be bought by a decent company for cargo hauling to ISS, or some other business purpose ? Could they be exported ?

It works for Russians ..

 

[js117]

Just a couple of side questions : When reducing number of ballistic missiles - where do rockets go ? Could those launchers be bought by a decent company for cargo hauling to ISS, or some other business purpose ? Could they be exported ?

It works for Russians ..

Good idea but under START you might have to get rid of the missiles to.

 

[Couerl]

"To", "two", "too", please look them up! :geek:


Hi, just be glad we have those nukes as they have without question prevented WWIII and perhaps WWIV from already occuring. :ugeek:

 

[emudude]

I say we give the UN sole authority for nuclear use in space, because it's obvious no one trusts "the other guy" to have nukes in space...even countries with no space program could vote on what to do with them. Allowing a UN council w/ all member states having a vote to administer nuclear space technology would make the world much safer, as countries that share an economy share in peace.There's going to be a plethora of dangerous materials in space eventually, and it's going to have to be run by something everyone has a stake in to even have a chance at working.

 

[RVHM]

"To", "two", "too", please look them up! :geek:


Hi, just be glad we have those nukes as they have without question prevented WWIII and perhaps WWIV from already occuring. :ugeek:

It wasn't nukes which stopped Churchill from launching Operation Unthinkable and thereby World War III.

 

[bushwhacker]

Hace to agree with Docm here ..
A few on the White House and Congress would solve a lot of problems.
Save a few for a few other interesting places wouldnt be a bad idea.

 

[Valcan]

"To", "two", "too", please look them up! :geek:


Hi, just be glad we have those nukes as they have without question prevented WWIII and perhaps WWIV from already occuring. :ugeek:

It wasn't nukes which stopped Churchill from launching Operation Unthinkable and thereby World War III.

No however they did keep russia from invading europe and starting a war which would have cost tens of millions of lives atleast. Russia never thought of nukes as a be all ending weapon. They thought as they always had to use them to destroy forces. It was us (US) who said anymore invasions of europe would result in a total loss senario.

So we had to go elsewhere.


And brian considering the russians still cant account for several suitcase nukes id be FAR more afraid of those weapons.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Let's keep focused on the subject. A few more posts like this and the thread will wind up in Politics. Or at least the incendiary off-topic posts....

Mod MW

 

[neutrino78x]

Just a couple of side questions : When reducing number of ballistic missiles - where do rockets go ? Could those launchers be bought by a decent company for cargo hauling to ISS, or some other business purpose ? Could they be exported ?

It works for Russians ..

Both the West and the Russians are obligated by treaty to destroy the missiles as well as the warheads. This is the best way to ensure that those destroyed weapons are no longer a threat to humanity.

The following is not classified, as the Russians already know, since they were there: The Russians come to the US submarine bases and inspect compliance with the treaty, and we do the same with them. The Russians are not allowed to enter the Trident submarine sonar control room or radio room, and the enlisted men are ordered not to speak to the Russians unless directly ordered to do so by a USN officer. The Russians were in an unmarked van on the other side of the bay ( I waved to them while on armed watch topside, encouraged to do so by the weapons officer). We had to have a light on top of a barrel on the boat, so they could observe that the boat was not moved at night.

Check out this old article about a similar inspection at the Atlantic Ocean Trident base, at King's Bay.

The conversion of some Trident submarines, including the USS Florida (SSBN-728), on which I served, to SSGN, is partly a result of the treaties. An SSGN boat, instead of having Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, has Tomahawk conventional cruise missiles. I was not assigned to the boat any longer when she was converted to SSGN, so I don't have more need to know about SSGN than a civilian, but my understanding is that they can launch 154 tomahawk missiles in 7 minutes. :shock:

To directly answer the question, I believe the Volna launcher is a modified missile which is based upon the one which launched warheads, and is itself not capable of launching warheads.

--Brian

 

[EarthlingX]

You just said that a nuclear sub could be used as a perfect launching platform for LEO, especially for non-complicated bulk cargo. (i would LOVE to have at least one)
Re-program missiles, replace heads with water-or-something - shoot them to LEO. I wonder, if costs are anywhere near interesting to commercial sphere.

Could those missiles not be re-classed as commercial carriers, and cleared off the weapons list ?

edit. ( they can be ) :

http://www.space-travel.com : Air Force Space Officials Prepare To Launch First Minotaur IV

by Staff Writers
Los Angeles AFB (AFNS) Apr 19, 2010
The first launch of the Minotaur IV Space Launch Vehicle is scheduled to occur April 20 at noon PDT from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

The Minotaur IV is the newest variant in the Minotaur family of rockets built by Orbital Sciences Corporation. It is a four-stage solid rocket vehicle consisting of three decommissioned Peacekeeper missile stages and a fourth commercially built stage developed by OSC.

For this maiden lift-off, the rocket will be in a "lite" configuration consisting of only the first three stages and no fourth stage due to mission requirements.

The payload for this first launch is the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, or HTV, built by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency scientists.

The Falcon HTV-2 program is an innovative research and development joint venture of DARPA and the Air Force to develop and demonstrate hypersonic technologies that will help achieve a prompt global-reach capability.

Wiki : Minotaur IV ( live launch tracking )

The Minotaur IV, also known as Peacekeeper SLV and OSP-2 PK is an American expendable launch system derived from the Peacekeeper missile. It is being developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation, and was scheduled to make its maiden flight in October 2009, with the SBSS satellite for the United States Air Force. Currently its maiden flight is scheduled to be a suborbital launch of a Hypersonic Test Vehicle HTV-2, scheduled for April 2010.

 

[dahliah_james]

thorough consideration.
but not clear.

 

[sftommy]

Interesting line of thought,

Seems like the best use of the fissionable material would be as a power source for missions where solar panels are not an option or are too expensive to launch. Russia has long used small nuclear power sources to power some of their more remote sensing devices. Nuclear reactions controlled to achieve directed thrust are probably a long, long time away, radioactive expellant being one of the biggest problems.

The Russian are reusing the military rockets for commercial applications. The Russian Dnepr used to launch the Bigelow Genesis I and II is a converted ICBM and Wikipendia claims they have another 150 available for conversion, although with only a 9,900 lb launch capacity to LEO. They also speak of another ICBM available for commercial conversion the R-36M (it’s conversion being apparently more problematic).

 

[EarthlingX]

Dnepr = SS-18 = RS-36M = RS-20 = Satan ... (there are details .. )

SDC : Dnepr - CryoSat 2 (Launched April 8, 2010)

Wiki : R-36 (missile)

Wiki : Dnepr-1