Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Project Orion Starship (The one with the nukes)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Ah, right, it also occurs to me--given the results of Projects Argus and Starfish, among others--firing off a propellant nuke in the Van Allen belts will supercharge them for a time, making crewed space travel hazardous and destroying spacecraft crossing the belts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

    I would say that unless we are being invaded by elephants, we should avoid using the nuclear Orion.
    I'm not aware of satellites "destroyed" by this blast. Three to my knowledge were disabled, probably due to the EMP discharge.
    I would tend to believe that the smaller nukes used would output a smaller EMP which not disable satellites. But I would agree that caution should be observed with a launch vehicle of this type.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I gave the source within the quote box, just below the quote itself:
    As the saying goes:

    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    As the saying goes:



    The common depictions of Orion with a bomb-ejection nozzle protruding from the middle of the pusher plate (like the Fantastic Plastic model kit, for instance), tends to give the impression that it would be difficult to initiate or correct any axial tilt. In fact, the design involved 10 or more launchers arrayed around the circumference of the spacecraft, firing bombs diagonally into the thrust axis, in sequence. The gun nozzles were exposed when the pusher plate was at its maximum forward excursion, but shielded when the pusher plate went through its return stroke, so they were protected from the bomb blast.
    That did mean that any restart required a steerable bomb, to motor around the extended pusher plate to the detonation point.
    scan0001.jpg
    (From Dyson, ibidem)

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,154
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I'm not aware of satellites "destroyed" by this blast. Three to my knowledge were disabled, probably due to the EMP discharge.
    I would tend to believe that the smaller nukes used would output a smaller EMP which not disable satellites. But I would agree that caution should be observed with a launch vehicle of this type.
    Reference: 2010 report from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (USA) called "Collateral Damage to Satellites from an EMP Attack", pages 13-14. Eight spacecraft damaged/disabled ("destroyed" to me). WARNING: download is 25+ MB.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,411
    I wonder if this tech could augment the pistons in some way:
    https://www.space.com/origami-inspir...-landings.html

    "The chain composed of the origami cells showed … counterintuitive wave motion: Even though the compressive pushing force from the device started the whole reaction, that force never made it to the other end of the chain,"

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,154
    I kind of envision the nuke blasting the (perfect) shock absorbers straight up, then the pistons slowly expanding upward (still pushed from below by the nuke force) so that the crew goes through increasing gravities... but certainly not the full blast. A lot of the expansion upward would have to be expelled or otherwise done away with to keep from crushing the payload into the equivalent of a penny under a railroad locomotive. Some of that enormous pressure has got to go away.

    Unless its just robots on top, then you pack them carefully and blast away.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,049
    Neal Stephenson used a rather clever Orion craft in one of his novels. The ship is shaped like an icosahedron, each edge of the icosahedron is a shock absorber, one of the triangular faces is the pusher-plate, the ‘hedron is hollow, and on the inside of the ‘hedron the habital parts of the ship are suspended from the ‘hedron on tensile lines.

    Don’t click this link if you don’t want to read potential spoilers: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/75837
    Calm down, have some dip. - George Carlin

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I wonder why that would ever make more sense than using nuclear energy to produce a steady beam of particles, seems much more efficient. But I guess efficiency was never the issue when you have nuclear bombs at your disposal.
    1. Relatively high thrust to weight ratio while retaining high specific impulse.
    2. Leverages the massive amount of R&D that has gone into nuclear weapons (particularly when compared to the level of development of other high-impulse drives in the late 1950's/1960's).

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,411
    A nice model of the battleship Orion was produced awhile back
    https://fantastic-plastic.com/Projec...atalogPage.htm

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,768
    Let's say you have your Orion in orbit. For whatever reason, it needs to turn without detonating a bomb. What sort of engine/thruster would be necessary? I don't see any sort of plans for such a thruster system on an Orion.
    Solfe

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Let's say you have your Orion in orbit. For whatever reason, it needs to turn without detonating a bomb. What sort of engine/thruster would be necessary? I don't see any sort of plans for such a thruster system on an Orion.
    An internal gyro flywheel would do for most usage. Just need to find the center of mass (loaded & unloaded)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,506
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    A nice model of the battleship Orion was produced awhile back
    https://fantastic-plastic.com/Projec...atalogPage.htm
    Nah. That's the one with the central bomb launcher, which is not just wrong, but looks wrong too.

    Grant Hutchison

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •