Orion, the reality.

[qso1]

I've noticed some of postings concerning the Orion project, particularly the starship variety. I thought the concept a little primitive sounding oddly enough but probably workable, however the reality is:<br /><br />I went to http://astronautix.com/lvs/oriative.htm and found one thing (Among a few others) that IMO would stop it dead in its tracks if proposed today.<br /><br />Direct from the site exerpt:<br />It therefore could reach Alpha Centauri in 130 years and would cost only one tenth of a GNP, or $ 150 per kilogramme of payload. <br /><br />My response:<br />Note the GNP cost...which is roughly twice the cost estimate for ISS. One thing was surely left out. The cost of 300,000 nukes. Heres one estimate for that cost.<br /><br />During the cold war years, both the United States and Russia stockpiled something like 30,000 nukes in what was referred to as an arms race. The cost of which must have been in the trillions of dollars over the four decade period of this arms race. Even if just $1 trillion dollars, the American public does not have the will for that kind of spending or timeline. Our democracy generally does not accomodate 130 year timelines for much of anything except when private industry tackles a long term problem.<br /><br />Using the arms race analogy, 30,000 nukes in roughly 40 years? I won't suggest it will take 400 years to produce 300,000 Orion nukes. I would suggest that to do it in the much shorter span of time say, 12 years, would require a Natinal effort on a scale dwarfing Apollo or the Manhattan Project.<br /><br />It gets worse, again an excerpt:<br />http://astronautix.com/lvs/oritsink.htm<br />15 billion kg of deuterium would be used in 30 million bombs.<br /><br />30,000,000 bombs? Lets get real here.<br /><br />The cost would be equal to the entire Gross National Product of the United States.<br />Is it possible to get <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>

 

[mlorrey]

Sending a small probe to Alpha Centauri shouldn't take that many nukes, its a matter of scale. Thos bomb estimates were made when probes were very large heavy things. <br /><br />However, if Nemesis is found, likely around 1 ly away, it should be rather easily reachable in 40 years. <br /><br />The other poster is correct though: Orion is primarily useful for interplanetary travel with large quantities of cargo.

 

[vogon13]

You have defined the investment.<br /><br />Now consider the return:<br /><br />A sustainable human colony on a world circling another star.<br /><br />{I realistically am aware Orion will not be seriously considered unless an 'end of the world' scenario befalls earth, but it is comforting to know that 'off the shelf hardware' could offer a hope for human survival in our galaxy should such a situation occur}<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

A 'staged' Orion concept, not considered in the original go round, or a segmental pusher plate improves the vehicle performance considerably during interstellar flight.<br /><br />You can potentially increase speed to .1c, or reduce the number of nukes needed for the job.<br /><br />Also, a pure fusion bomb (they are working on it) would dramatically shift the economics of the craft.<br /><br />A possible inertial confinement/fusion propulsion system would push the economics even further favorably.<br /><br />The 'classic' Orion vehicle of your analysis is a 1st generation craft. Staging and advanced nuclear impulse units would be the 2nd generation. Fusing dueterium pellets (via laser or particle beam) would be a 3rd generation craft.<br /><br />At some point, the two lines on the graph will cross, and someone will build a practical interstellar vehicle.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

unless I am mistaken a 1 mega ton bomb is considerable smaller than most bombs constructed during the cold war. Since I will assume the most expensive part of the bomb is the refined uranium, deutrim, etc it is possible their estimate is plausible.

 

[qso1]

vogon13:<br />A 'staged' Orion concept, not considered in the original go round, or a segmental pusher plate improves the vehicle performance considerably during interstellar flight.<br /><br />My response:<br />Your on the right track because much of what I have as data is based on the first generation designs including the interplanetary one which would still be impractical (1st gen).<br /><br />And you are right, by the time we are able to do interstellar travel, we will most likely be using second or third generation or something of completely different design. <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]

Your about right on this one. The average size bomb in the U.S. arsenal was close to a megaton.<br /><br />The Soviet Union tended towards larger bombs to make up for less accurate guidance systems. Even their bombs got smaller when they improved guidance systems. I'd say for them, they were a bit above the 1 Mt average. I haven't actually run the numbers but 1Mt sounds about right.<br /><br />The problem is the sheer production numbers required by the interstellar Orion. The numbers ranging from 300,000 to 30,000,000 bombs. Even 2000 bombs for the interplanetary design is high when one considers that design would presumably be operating relatively frequently. <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]

I have considered the ROI.<br /><br />We first have to find that world but when we do and assuming its not 5,000 Ly away. it will kick us as an exploring and colonizing species in a way not seen since probably Apollo.<br /><br />At that point, we may be willing to put up what would now be considered a high investment with only a promise of return. We could then develop an advanced Orion or whatever its called and colonize such a world.<br />Where near term technology is concerned, I favor some kind of fusion power that would be evolved from research into the current plasma type propulsion systems.<br /><br />A system not unlike the VASIMR. A second or third gen VASIMR. <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]

If your talking unmanned probes, they have actually<br />remained relatively constant in size. Think Mariner 4 to Mars compared to Cassini. Not a heck of a lot of difference.<br /><br />Still, when you talk unmanned probes to Nemesis, I think something like that is a much more practical use of Orion tech than manned missions.<br /><br />A manned interstellar transport to Alpha Centauri would have to be quite large especially if it takes 40 years just to reach the hypothetical Nemesis star. That translates to almost 200 years to AC. <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>

 

[mlorrey]

Making thermonuclear bombs is actually very cheap once you have the infrastructure to do it. What is difficult and expensive is the guidance and reentry vehicle systems, as well as the missiles, which you don't need with Orion. The money invested in the Manhattan project was to build the infrastructure and do the research to develop the first bombs. Since then, US researchers have found many very inexpensive ways to make bombs using existing nuclear infrastructure.<br /><br />Given a production line for a standard 250 ktn bomb, unit costs should run in the thousands of dollars. They are remarkably simple devices, in actuality, and the materials used are generally merely highly refined metallic elements or simple compounds. The nuclear countries never set up such production lines because they really had no need of such. <br /><br />The 20-30 thousand weapon stocks of the US and USSR were built up over decades, never producing more than a few thousand a year at peak.<br /><br />The positive thing about Orion is that it will make nukes more valuable in space as propulsion modules than as weapons here on earth. The downside of such large production runs is that without very strict tracking, it could be easy to slip a few out the door here or there.

 

[spacefire]

it would be nice if nuclear bombs could be produced in space. The Orion would be launched from outside the Earth's atmosphere, virtually eliminating all arguments against it. <br />Now all we need to find is an asteroid of pure uranium , maybe? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

or n'aquita....

 

[qso1]

Even if the bombs are cheap to build, the sheer number of them for just one interstellar mission. Maybe interplanetary is doable with this concept but of course, as someone mentioned before, an advanced version. An Orion building upon present and projected technology.<br /><br />mlorrey<br />The 20-30 thousand weapon stocks of the US and USSR were built up over decades, never producing more than a few thousand a year at peak.<br /><br />My response:<br />Thats true. Despite this lengthy time period, it was considered an arms race. Now realistically, if we as a Nation chose to do Orion interplanetary, the timeline would probably be a decade more or less.<br /><br />Orion interstellar however, with 300,000 to 30,000,000 lbs to produce, seems beyond the range of practical. The entire Nations manufacturing capacity would have to be utilized to produce 30 million nukes. <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>

 

[chriscdc]

I wonder if you could 'beam' the nuclear power to the space craft. You build some massive dish in say a lunar crater. Place some material to be vaporised and ionised by the explosion above the dish. <br /><br />The craft would use a plasma sail to ride the plasma generated by the explosion. Of course you would need to learn how to control how the plasma spreads at a distance and how it interacts with the solar wind etc.

 

[vogon13]

Keeping the reactant mass focused would be extremely difficult.<br /><br />Extremely.<br /><br /><br />Additionally, all the residue is in one place on the moon.<br /><br />Probably not a good thing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Other than that, go for it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

In a world where you can't even take nail clippers on to an airliner do we really want tens of thousands of nuclear bombs in orbit?<br /><br />I like Orion. For a relatively "quick and dirty" concept it's amazingly capable. But I can't get around the politics of it. I can't see the world as a whole allowing a small group to wield that much power. Maybe if as you propose the bombs were built in space at a distance away from earth that would be considered safe--much like generals in ancient Rome were barred from bringing their legions within a specific distance of the capital. But then what could you do if some Orion captain either on his own or in the pay of some group turns his ship toward earth with a load of a few hundred to a few thousand bombs?<br /><br />I recently read that Andrews Aerospace is working under a NASA contract to study an updated version of Orion that uses "micro-bombs" or something like that. They would be impractical as weapons and use weapons grade fuel more efficiently. <br /><br />PS: here is the link: <br /><br />http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTA2<br /><br />"Pulsed nuclear fission propulsion achieves the combination of high thrust values and specific impulse necessary for crewed exploration mission to both the inner and outer planets of the solar system. This mission capability would be sufficient for a 100 metric ton payload to reach Mars in 60-90 days, or Jupiter in about one year."<br /><br />Sounds promising. The key technologies are subcritcal fission and external triggering. Both of which would seem to make the "pulse units" less desirable as WMDs.

 

[mlorrey]

Good points, tomnackid. I would say that a nuclear bomb in orbit, without a reentry vehicle, is not a bomb. The reentry vehicle is essential to deliver a bomb from space to the earths surface. The US and USSR each spent decades perfecting their IRV technologies.<br /><br />That being said, the world trusts private corporations with nuclear material all the time: most all nuclear reactors in the US, and much of the rest of the world, are privately owned and operated, and the private nuclear industry has a better safety record, by far, than government nuclear programs.

 

[rocketman5000]

very true, I wonder what sort of thrust levels and terminal velocity you could get if you used all of the a vasimr system similiar to the total mass of the Orion systems. It would mean you'd have much more power to work with (and a fraction of the fission or fusionable material) meaning it might be possible to have even higher isp's than currently hypothesised in designs

 

[rocketman5000]

do you know any more about the MiniMagOrion concept? could these be modular units so if you wanted to send 200 metric tonnes you could have 2 motors side by side similiar to chemical rockets?

 

[qso1]

rocketman5000:<br />very true, I wonder what sort of thrust levels and terminal velocity you could get if you used all of the a vasimr system similiar to the total mass of the Orion systems. It would mean you'd have much more power to work with (and a fraction of the fission or fusionable material) meaning it might be possible to have even higher isp's than currently hypothesised in designs<br /><br />My response:<br />Considering the potential ISP of VASIMR based designs, it would seem likely that very high ISPs could be achieved. Especially once the VASIMR design evolves into a fusion based propulsion design. At this point, I'm not sure what the VASIMR program status is. I read somewhere hear that private industry took it over.<br /><br />At one time, I recall somewhere seeing that fusion designs would achieve around 25% SOL. I think that was more or less a theoretical limit but probably achievable. <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]

Looks promising to me. I'm sort of in favor of fusion propulsion based on evolved VASIMR designs. Especially considering the control of bomb making materials. This is kind of an example of Orion tech evolving as well which it inevitably must do once we are capable as a species, of interplanetary and interstellar travel. <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>

 

[davf]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>or n'aquita.... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />LMAO! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[rocketman5000]

I had been working with an MIT grad student about a month ago who seemed to know a bit more about the current status and told me proposed fly dates for test versions, unfortunately I didn't write them down, but it wasn't that long in the future, think circa CLV launch timeframe if memory serves right. I believe the company was (wisely) aiming at satelite launch market initially with the expectations of making inroads on the ion market share. with their expected isps I would give them a good chance in the market.

 

[qso1]

Thats good news, generally whenever I notice a program website starting not to be updated. No progress reports or outdated ones. It can generally be assumed the plug was pulled somehow. Saw this with Roton right after a promising test hover flight.<br /><br />Good to hear VASIMR or its equivalents are still in the game. <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>

 

[rocketman5000]

spacedaily had a short blurb about a month ago as well about the technology being liscensed