Revisiting Project Orion.

[orion_project]

<b>The Space Review.</b><br /><br />(credit: Phil Smith courtesy of Sam Dinkin)<br /><br />If President Bush wants the 51st state to be New Texas on the Moon, he should consider reviving Orion. <br /><br /><b>Revisiting Project Orion.</b><br />by Sam Dinkin.<br /><br />If you look on Amazon.com for Jeff Bezos’s personal book reviews, the only rocket book you will see is Project Orion. His summary from April 14, 2002 is as follows:<br /><br />For those of us who dream of visiting the outer planets, seeing Saturn’s rings up close without intermediation of telescopes or charge-coupled devices, well, we pretty much *have* to read “Project Orion.” In 1958, some of the world’s smartest people, including famous physicist Freeman Dyson (the author’s father), expected to visit the outer planets in “Orion,” a nuclear-bomb propelled ship big enough and powerful enough to seat its passengers in lazy-boy recliners. They expected to start their grand tour by 1970. This was not pie-in-the-sky optimism; they had strong technical reasons for believing they could do it.<br /><br /><br />Continued........CLICK HERE.

 

[steve82]

Yup. Good book. We've talked about it in here before. Great intellects with bamboo slide rules and large budgets. K&E graph paper to plot trajectories. I liked the coke machine nuclear bomb dispenser the best.

 

[vogon13]

And the big 4 million ton interstellar colonizer ship, propelled with 25 megaton nukes to alpha centauri in 150 years! Incredible! They wanted a depleted uranium pusher plate so the nukes would 'breed' fuel for a reactor for power for the colony! Amazing ideas, and it still seems doable, except for the part where all those nukes go off.<br /><br />One of the biggest impediments was the size of the smallest practical ship being in the neighborhood of 4000 tons! Can you imagine launching the entire International Space Station in one flight, with 3000+ tons of sand ballast so the Orion engine would work on such a small thing?<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>

 

[shyningnight]

As soon as anyone hears the parts about "Hydrogen Bombs pushing the space ship"..<br />You'll get a "yeah.. thanks for coming..now the nice security man will show you out"...<br /><br />In another 50 years, when we have an established presence on the moon, THEN we might be able to have a rational discussion about using an Orion derivitave to launch from the moon.<br /><br />Certainly would be an AWESOME sight to behold... that much mass lifting off... big old nukes one after another... Well, from a respectful distance with some good goggles. <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[vogon13]

Put on your welding helmet, slather on some sun block, take your potassium iodide tablets, and you can stand as close to the launch as your cajones will let you! <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>

 

[Lunatik]

In almost EVERY thread I read on Orion there seems to be confusion- the Orion engine was NEVER intended to be used in Atmospheric launch duties (for obvious reasons) but as an "Interstellar" engine if you will. Once you're actually IN space, light the fuse & go Star-Trekkin' ........

 

[orion_project]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the Orion engine was NEVER intended to be used in Atmospheric launch duties<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />It was originally intended for exactly that. From Jackass Flats Nevada to be precise.

 

[vogon13]

They even worked out modifications to the nukes to make them safer for atmospheric detonation. By using various materials as 'channel filler' a great deal of potential radiation could be absorbed. Even the 'small' 4000 <i><b>ton</b></i> craft didn't use very large nukes, total radioactivity into the atmosphere was calculated to be much less than one large above ground thermonuclear test. One of the other problems noted was fireball engulfment of the vehicle during the initial stages of launching from the earth's surface and the consequent emplacement of bomb debris on the craft. That one was rather more intractable. <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>

 

[steve82]

Probably the most intriguing part of the concept was the ability to shape the charges and direct a large part of of the the nuclear blast in one direction.

 

[wvbraun]

Project Orion was a fascinating project but I don't think it will be revived any time soon if ever. The space elevator holds more promise by now in my view. Much less dangerous, much easier to sell to the public, technically not more ambitious than PO and even cheaper to build and operate.<br /><br />But maybe we will someday use PO or PD (Project Daedalus, same concept but with laser ignited fusion charges) in space. I still like the idea.

 

[mikejz]

I think that Orion is a great idea, however its requires a political will that will need a really really really good reason for having to use it. IE astroid headed our way, etc....<br /><br />Also, what is the benefit of using a nuke for the first (ground) blast over either conventional explosivies or a some sort of magnetic ramp?

 

[davf]

Which is exactly the technology used to develop the nuke bomb powered ASAT systems in SDI in the '80s.

 

[vogon13]

Did you know...<br /><br /><br />And I'm not sure I should be mentioning this, but......<br /><br /><br />Oh, what the heck, here goes:<br /><br />I don't have any information regarding whether or not this device was ever built. And the same regarding a test of one (although there was a test that.....never mind). Any how, apparently, there is a rather simple modification that can be made to a nuke that will convert a sizeable percentage of its yield into microwave energy (into a fairly small band of frequencies, IIRC). It sounds very sci-fi, but a microwave bomb is possible.<br /><br />What a bizarre gadget! <br />You could zap everyones 'popcorn' at the sametime. <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>

 

[orion_project]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also, what is the benefit of using a nuke for the first (ground) blast over either conventional explosivies or a some sort of magnetic ramp?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I wish I had a buck for every time I contemplated that t&%$#@! issue. It's a question gone over countless times at the club. Atmospheric bursts are relatively clean from a fallout standpoint. If you can just get around the groundburst you eliminate nearly all the residual radiation. Problem is that you need around 5 pulses per second during launch. <br /><br />The best options I've come up with are a sea launch or a thick wide steel launchpad. Preferably in a polar region so the magnetosphere doesn't trap too many radioisotopes.