I used to be a proponent of what I liked to call the 'One-Time Orion'. Basically build a really big Orion, and launch ten or even hundreds of thousands of tons into orbit to kick-start a space-based economy. It would add a negligible amount (<1%) of fallout to the existing bomb test residue.
I used to be a proponent of what I liked to call the 'One-Time Orion'. Basically build a really big Orion, and launch ten or even hundreds of thousands of tons into orbit to kick-start a space-based economy. It would add a negligible amount (<1%) of fallout to the existing bomb test residue.I still think it would be a reasonable option if we needed to launch quickly, a la Footfall or some other emergency. But it's such a big project, the total cost is huge, even if the cost per pound of payload is very low.If someone has several tens of billions to spend on a launch system, they'd be better off building infrastructure to manufacture and launch lots of 'Big Dumb Rockets'. Something with at least a reusable first stage, optimised for cost not payload efficiency. Launching weekly or better. May be 5 to 10 thousand tons per year. For decades.It's definitely doable, there just needs to be an economically justifiable reason to spend the money.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/18/2013 05:46 amI used to be a proponent of what I liked to call the 'One-Time Orion'. Basically build a really big Orion, and launch ten or even hundreds of thousands of tons into orbit to kick-start a space-based economy. It would add a negligible amount (<1%) of fallout to the existing bomb test residue.I gotta say, yer thinkin' big here.Just for grins, how big would the rocket be?
That being said I think an underground launch like a Verne shot would work well enough to launch a fairly large payload without discernible fallout, and would not violate international nuclear test treaties.
Hmm, really? If so, I wonder why e.g China is not working on it now. Sure, the G-forces are deadly, but you could launch a huge space habitat, empty
Quote from: Vultur on 05/25/2013 06:19 pmHmm, really? If so, I wonder why e.g China is not working on it now. Sure, the G-forces are deadly, but you could launch a huge space habitat, emptyHow would you make sure you launch it on a convenient orbit? You don't want it to just fall on earth.
Wouldn't the angle of the launch tunnel from the underground chamber to the atmosphere determine the trajectory the payload flew?
Even if you could power a space cannon with a nuclear bomb, I'm not sure there'd be any point.If you build it crudely, you're just nuking the payload: you can't make a shock absorber for that kind of shock.
Wouldn't high altitude (but not quite space) detonations produce an artificial radiation belt a la Starfish Prime?Ignoring the effects of fallout, that could be a real mess.
In a new thread about Orion, I think it's worth mentioning this great documentary on the subject:I think it's clear in this documentary that the main obstacle for Orion is nuclear fallout. So I doubt an Orion-style vehicle will ever be launched from the ground.However, since there are reasonable hopes for fully-reusable space launchers in the coming decade, can we imagine building an Orion spacecraft in orbit and launch it from there?
Quote from: Patchouli on 05/27/2013 01:23 amThe fall out is a solvable issue surprisingly enough.Since the bulk of the fallout is generated by dust getting sucked into the nuclear fire ball you simply build a large steel platform to launch from.Pick a small desert island some where in the Pacific and pave it over with concrete and steel.You're still blowing up 800 inefficient, dirty fission bombs in the atmosphere, and they probably have to be based on plutonium, which is nasty all by itself for an extremely long time, even ignoring the fission products.
The fall out is a solvable issue surprisingly enough.Since the bulk of the fallout is generated by dust getting sucked into the nuclear fire ball you simply build a large steel platform to launch from.Pick a small desert island some where in the Pacific and pave it over with concrete and steel.
I don't think the problem ever was with the first few shots at ground level.
Even if it were all practical, as far as engineering goes,then you run into the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Do any of you seriously contemplate that Project Orion will ever be revived and become a reality? Even in your children's or grandchildren's lifetimes?
Or are you simply dreaming or clinging to a fantasy that will never come true?
Not even China, which never signed the Test Ban Treaty, would dare try tocreate their own project, like unto PO.