Author Topic: Project Orion to Mars - video  (Read 8195 times)


Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #1 on: 01/13/2007 03:08 PM »
And here's a gallery with some pics to study.  Love how its been updated to use what looks like sixteen 6-segment STS SRBs!  

http://rhysy.plexersoft.com/orion/slides/Orion%20views%203.html

Offline Davie OPF

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Kennedy Space Center
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #2 on: 01/15/2007 09:53 PM »
That's never going to launch from KSC, that's for sure!

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2932
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #3 on: 01/15/2007 10:24 PM »
You dont think Coca Cola could get it off the ground?  Not so sure about what the UN banner is on there for though

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #4 on: 01/15/2007 11:01 PM »
Nice work. Pity about the poor design, though. Would've been great to see a practical Orion design done up right. Oh well.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline cape51

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Riverside, CA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #5 on: 01/16/2007 12:28 AM »
is this just a conceptial work by a nasa fan o does this have real possibility.....not sure if i like the pogo effect....seems to be too many moving parts when an engine could do the same thing.  also....adding all those solid rockets brings the potential for something to go wrong signifgicantly higher

BTW  does anyone have a video of the mars launch, transit, and landing as it was seen several months ago on the NTV?  That one was brilliant
CAPE51
"SEE YOU ON THE FLIP SIDE."

Offline simonbp

Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #6 on: 01/16/2007 01:55 AM »
Now if we can only have a Project Constellation Orion to Mars...

Simon ;)

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #7 on: 01/16/2007 03:08 AM »
Quote
cape51 - 15/1/2007  6:11 PM

is this just a conceptial work by a nasa fan o does this have real possibility.....

Project Orion was an actual series of studies by the General Atomics corporation for the USAF and NASA from 1958 to 1963. It was a practical concept, but had obvious problems. The designs shown on thewebsite are not actual Orion designs, but are instead a science fiction take on the concept.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline SteveMick

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #8 on: 01/16/2007 07:16 PM »
I have been wondering if the recent North korean nuclear "fizzle" might have some relevance to nuclear EPP (Orion). In previous discussions the question of minimum size for a fission detonation is has been central in that it determines the minimum size for such a vehicle and hence its cost and likliehood of production. If memory serves, a backpack nuke had a min. of 8KT and this was accepted as the lower limit. This makes for a big vehicle. In reading Scientific American's description of what might have gone wrong, one suggestion was that while in storage some of the plutonium had decayed into the 240 isotope which produced too many neutrons during explosive compression of the fissile material and reduced the size of the blast by causing an assymetry.
 Given this I wonder whether deliberately adding plutonium 240 could reduce the size of the blast tof a hypothetical vehicle to a level that would allow a relatively small (and much cheaper presumably)version of Orion type EPP. Is this practical or is reducing the energy per unit mass of the bombs something that will negate too much of the benefit gained from using nuclear energy in this application?

Steve

Offline simonbp

Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #9 on: 01/16/2007 10:02 PM »
The real cost of a nuclear pulse drive is the fallout, both atmospheric in launching it, and the trapped alphas and betas when in vacuum, which would come right back down on us. You don't necessarily need a small bomb to have an Orion, you need a "cleaner" bomb that reduces non-gamma radiation...

Simon ;)

Offline MySDCUserID

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #10 on: 01/17/2007 12:02 AM »
Quote
SteveMick - 16/1/2007  2:16 PM

I have been wondering if the recent North korean nuclear "fizzle" might have some relevance to nuclear EPP (Orion). In previous discussions the question of minimum size for a fission detonation is has been central in that it determines the minimum size for such a vehicle and hence its cost and likliehood of production. If memory serves, a backpack nuke had a min. of 8KT and this was accepted as the lower limit. This makes for a big vehicle. In reading Scientific American's description of what might have gone wrong, one suggestion was that while in storage some of the plutonium had decayed into the 240 isotope which produced too many neutrons during explosive compression of the fissile material and reduced the size of the blast by causing an assymetry.
 Given this I wonder whether deliberately adding plutonium 240 could reduce the size of the blast tof a hypothetical vehicle to a level that would allow a relatively small (and much cheaper presumably)version of Orion type EPP. Is this practical or is reducing the energy per unit mass of the bombs something that will negate too much of the benefit gained from using nuclear energy in this application?

Steve

The Davy Crockett Tactical Nuclear Artillery Cannon that was deployed in South Korea in the early 1960's used a nuclear physics package that yielded about .25 kilotons.

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #11 on: 01/17/2007 04:39 AM »
Is that plate at the back of the vechile actually bouncing or is that an illusion?

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #12 on: 01/17/2007 04:52 AM »
Quote
Carl G - 16/1/2007  10:39 PM

Is that plate at the back of the vechile actually bouncing or is that an illusion?

The pusher plate was to be attached to a two-stage shock absorber system.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8651
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #13 on: 01/17/2007 02:04 PM »
Quote
SteveMick - 16/1/2007  2:16 PM

I have been wondering if the recent North korean nuclear "fizzle" might have some relevance to nuclear EPP (Orion). In previous discussions the question of minimum size for a fission detonation is has been central in that it determines the minimum size for such a vehicle and hence its cost and likliehood of production. If memory serves, a backpack nuke had a min. of 8KT and this was accepted as the lower limit. This makes for a big vehicle. In reading Scientific American's description of what might have gone wrong, one suggestion was that while in storage some of the plutonium had decayed into the 240 isotope which produced too many neutrons during explosive compression of the fissile material and reduced the size of the blast by causing an assymetry.
 Given this I wonder whether deliberately adding plutonium 240 could reduce the size of the blast tof a hypothetical vehicle to a level that would allow a relatively small (and much cheaper presumably)version of Orion type EPP. Is this practical or is reducing the energy per unit mass of the bombs something that will negate too much of the benefit gained from using nuclear energy in this application?

Steve

My understanding of PU-240 is it spontaneously emits neutrons (It was in taylors book so it must be true). If one of those neutrons kicks out at the wrong time (during the transition from critical to supper critical) the bomb fizzles (detonates early, and does not to give you the full yield). Adding more PU-240 increases the odds of this happening. Instead of having a controlled yield you will end up with yields all over the place (some small , some large). Not a good thing...

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline SteveMick

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #14 on: 01/17/2007 04:54 PM »
Thanks for the info. I suppose my recollection of the previous discussion that 8KT was min. was incorrect.
 Small fission explosions have a utility that allow applications beyond EPP I would assert, and it makes me wonder what the absolute practical minimum would be. Also I wonder if such small devices can be designed to initiate a fusion reaction. If so it recalls an old wacko idea of mine for power generation.
 If an underground chamber could be constructed that is capable of containing a "small" thermonuclear blast then we can finally have controlled(or at least contained) fusion power. Wells with heat exchangers drilled around the perifery could run steam turbines to generate elec. power. This would be a great way to get rid of the bombs destroyed for treaty obligations since about one a month could power the country as I recall. This has the advantage of having the waste buried in a sealed container.
 As to the utility of fission EPP for surface to orbit, I agree that it is completely impractical and dangerous but I just can't resist thinking about it as a challenging engineering problem.
Steve

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #15 on: 01/17/2007 05:04 PM »
Orion is an engineer's wet dream ! man, that would be something to see, a huge spacecraft riding nuclear bombs all the way to mars.
not that it would have a chance in hell of ever taking off. besides the obvious eveironmental concerns I think there is another showstopper, namely mass producing nulcear bombs would be ruinously expensive. as I recall the entire american and russian arsenal would be needed to push the 4000 tons one to the outer planets, that's a lot of bombs, and it's not clear where you'd find that much plutonium

Offline SteveMick

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #16 on: 01/17/2007 05:10 PM »
I should have said that one typical warhead's worth of energy per month in the form of smaller remanufactured bombs would "run the country". We'd have enough for 100 years or so even if I'm off by a factor of ten.
Steve

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8651
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1123
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #17 on: 01/17/2007 05:22 PM »
Quote
SteveMick - 17/1/2007  12:10 PM

I should have said that one typical warhead's worth of energy per month in the form of smaller remanufactured bombs would "run the country". We'd have enough for 100 years or so even if I'm off by a factor of ten.
Steve

Why not just remanufacture the plutonium into fuel rods and use inside a nuclear reactor. It would be safer.

Do some googling on operation plowshare... Gnome maybe?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline UK Shuttle Clan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #18 on: 01/18/2007 08:04 AM »
Is all this "oh no!!" rantings we get from those who think we're killing the planet all a load of "if there's something to protest about, sign me up?"

I mean, we have "don't have a big car, you're killing the planet."

And "Nuclear is evil"

Just all seems to be a case of "don't do this, don't do that" when we might actually solve some problems by stretching our legs!

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Orion to Mars - video
« Reply #19 on: 01/18/2007 10:23 AM »
it's just that there are better alternatives.
and much safer and more practical uses of nuclear power for propulsion, like GCNTR, NSWR, plasma + vapor core reactor, etc....

Tags: