Orion project, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 13-11-2003 @ 07:55 AM by Byrd
Well.. I don't know that it was a "major leap in technology," there. More like a duck-waddle in the wrong directions. It was abandoned because it simply wasn't a usable design.

The idea (laughable but true) was to propel a rocket by setting off a nuclear explosion 200 miles behind it.

Some specifications:

The idea of an "atomic drive" was a science-fiction cliche by the 1930's, but it appears that Stanislaw Ulam and Frederick de Hoffman conducted the first serious investigation of atomic propulsion for space flight in 1944, while they were working on the Manhattan Project (2). During the quarter-century following World War II, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (replaced by the Department of Energy in 1974) worked with various federal agencies on a series of nuclear engine projects with names like Dumbo, Kiwi, and Pluto, culminating in NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) (3). Close to producing a flight prototype, NERVA was cancelled in 1972 (4). The basic idea behind all these engines was to heat a working fluid by pumping it through a nuclear reactor, then allowing it to expand through a nozzle to develop thrust. Although this sounds simple the engineering problems were horrendous. How good were these designs? A useful figure for comparing rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), defined as pounds of thrust produced per pound of propellant consumed per second. The units of Isp are thus seconds. The best chemical rocket in service, the cryogenic hydrogen-oxygen engine, has an Isp of about 450 seconds (5). NERVA had an Isp roughly twice as great (6), a surprisingly small figure considering that nuclear fission fuel contains more than a million times as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuel. A major problem is that the reactor operates at a constant temperature, and this temperature must be less than the melting point of its structural materials, about 3000 K (7).

A number of designs were proposed in the late 1940's and 1950's to get around the temperature limitation and to exploit the enormous power of the atomic bomb, estimated to be on the order of 10 billion horsepower for a moderate-sized device (8). The Martin Company designed a nuclear pulse rocket engine with a "combustion chamber" 130 feet in diameter. Small atomic bombs with yields under 0.1 kiloton (a kiloton is the energy equivalent of 1000 tons of the high explosive TNT) would have been dropped into this chamber at a rate of about one per second (9); water would have been injected to serve as propellant. This design produced the relatively small Isp of 1150 seconds, and could have yielded a maximum velocity change for the vehicle of 26,000 feet/second. The vehicle would have been boosted to an altitude of 150 miles by chemical rockets, and the extra 8000 ft/sec or so thus provided would have allowed it to escape the Earth's gravity (10). The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory produced a similar although much smaller design called Helios at about the same time (11).


More about it can be found here....
www.islandone.org...


reply posted on 13-11-2003 @ 03:48 PM by MarkLuitzen
Originally posted by Byrd
Well.. I don't know that it was a "major leap in technology," there. More like a duck-waddle in the wrong directions. It was abandoned because it simply wasn't a usable design.

The idea (laughable but true) was to propel a rocket by setting off a nuclear explosion 200 miles behind it.

Some specifications:

The idea of an "atomic drive" was a science-fiction cliche by the 1930's, but it appears that Stanislaw Ulam and Frederick de Hoffman conducted the first serious investigation of atomic propulsion for space flight in 1944, while they were working on the Manhattan Project (2). During the quarter-century following World War II, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (replaced by the Department of Energy in 1974) worked with various federal agencies on a series of nuclear engine projects with names like Dumbo, Kiwi, and Pluto, culminating in NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) (3). Close to producing a flight prototype, NERVA was cancelled in 1972 (4). The basic idea behind all these engines was to heat a working fluid by pumping it through a nuclear reactor, then allowing it to expand through a nozzle to develop thrust. Although this sounds simple the engineering problems were horrendous. How good were these designs? A useful figure for comparing rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), defined as pounds of thrust produced per pound of propellant consumed per second. The units of Isp are thus seconds. The best chemical rocket in service, the cryogenic hydrogen-oxygen engine, has an Isp of about 450 seconds (5). NERVA had an Isp roughly twice as great (6), a surprisingly small figure considering that nuclear fission fuel contains more than a million times as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuel. A major problem is that the reactor operates at a constant temperature, and this temperature must be less than the melting point of its structural materials, about 3000 K (7).

A number of designs were proposed in the late 1940's and 1950's to get around the temperature limitation and to exploit the enormous power of the atomic bomb, estimated to be on the order of 10 billion horsepower for a moderate-sized device (8). The Martin Company designed a nuclear pulse rocket engine with a "combustion chamber" 130 feet in diameter. Small atomic bombs with yields under 0.1 kiloton (a kiloton is the energy equivalent of 1000 tons of the high explosive TNT) would have been dropped into this chamber at a rate of about one per second (9); water would have been injected to serve as propellant. This design produced the relatively small Isp of 1150 seconds, and could have yielded a maximum velocity change for the vehicle of 26,000 feet/second. The vehicle would have been boosted to an altitude of 150 miles by chemical rockets, and the extra 8000 ft/sec or so thus provided would have allowed it to escape the Earth's gravity (10). The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory produced a similar although much smaller design called Helios at about the same time (11).


More about it can be found here....
www.islandone.org...


see I mean what this says I ones saw a program about interstellar travel they said that if they should use plasma they had to use magnetic force fields to contain it because of the high temperatures .

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by MarkLuitzen]


reply posted on 23-11-2003 @ 05:56 PM by MarkLuitzen
Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
Originally posted by Byrd
Well.. I don't know that it was a "major leap in technology," there. More like a duck-waddle in the wrong directions. It was abandoned because it simply wasn't a usable design.

The idea (laughable but true) was to propel a rocket by setting off a nuclear explosion 200 miles behind it.

Some specifications:

The idea of an "atomic drive" was a science-fiction cliche by the 1930's, but it appears that Stanislaw Ulam and Frederick de Hoffman conducted the first serious investigation of atomic propulsion for space flight in 1944, while they were working on the Manhattan Project (2). During the quarter-century following World War II, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (replaced by the Department of Energy in 1974) worked with various federal agencies on a series of nuclear engine projects with names like Dumbo, Kiwi, and Pluto, culminating in NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) (3). Close to producing a flight prototype, NERVA was cancelled in 1972 (4). The basic idea behind all these engines was to heat a working fluid by pumping it through a nuclear reactor, then allowing it to expand through a nozzle to develop thrust. Although this sounds simple the engineering problems were horrendous. How good were these designs? A useful figure for comparing rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), defined as pounds of thrust produced per pound of propellant consumed per second. The units of Isp are thus seconds. The best chemical rocket in service, the cryogenic hydrogen-oxygen engine, has an Isp of about 450 seconds (5). NERVA had an Isp roughly twice as great (6), a surprisingly small figure considering that nuclear fission fuel contains more than a million times as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuel. A major problem is that the reactor operates at a constant temperature, and this temperature must be less than the melting point of its structural materials, about 3000 K (7).

A number of designs were proposed in the late 1940's and 1950's to get around the temperature limitation and to exploit the enormous power of the atomic bomb, estimated to be on the order of 10 billion horsepower for a moderate-sized device (8). The Martin Company designed a nuclear pulse rocket engine with a "combustion chamber" 130 feet in diameter. Small atomic bombs with yields under 0.1 kiloton (a kiloton is the energy equivalent of 1000 tons of the high explosive TNT) would have been dropped into this chamber at a rate of about one per second (9); water would have been injected to serve as propellant. This design produced the relatively small Isp of 1150 seconds, and could have yielded a maximum velocity change for the vehicle of 26,000 feet/second. The vehicle would have been boosted to an altitude of 150 miles by chemical rockets, and the extra 8000 ft/sec or so thus provided would have allowed it to escape the Earth's gravity (10). The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory produced a similar although much smaller design called Helios at about the same time (11).


More about it can be found here....
www.islandone.org...


see I mean what this says I ones saw a program about interstellar travel they said that if they should use plasma they had to use magnetic force fields to contain it because of the high temperatures .

found a link which tells more.
www.aulis.com...


reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 03:29 AM by sabre151
reply to post by JamesMcMahn



Actually the theory is quite sound during the 1952 Operation Castle two graphite covered steel test spheres were placed near the castle bravo test device and both were recovered intact after detonation proving engineered objects could survive a nuclear blast.

A test similar to the castle bravo sphere test apparently occurred as an accidental side effect of a nuclear containment test called "Pascal B" conducted on 27 August 1957. The test's experimental designer Dr. Brownlee performed a highly approximate calculation that suggested that the low-yield nuclear explosive would accelerate the massive (900 kg) steel capping plate to six times escape velocity. The plate was never found, and Dr. Brownlee believes that the plate never left the atmosphere (for example it could have been vaporized by compression heating of the atmosphere due to its high speed). The calculated velocity was sufficiently interesting that the crew trained a high-speed camera on the plate, which unfortunately only appeared in one frame, but this nevertheless gave a very high lower bound for the speed.


Unfortunately the main problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth is nuclear fallout. Any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry fissionables back to earth unless the spaceship were launched from a polar region such as Antarctica. This would require enormous legal changes as the continent is presently an international wildlife preserve. Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, that each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout. The United States Government concurred and decided that because of the danger to human life and the danger to electronic systems on the ground (from electromagnetic pulse) to shelve the project.

A one meter scaled model of the proposed Orion craft was tested using RDX (a chemical explosive) instead of nuclear weapons. This model was called "putt-putt" and it flew a controlled flight for 23 seconds to a height of 56 meters at Point Loma.


Source's: en.wikipedia.org...

See also en.wikipedia.org... a british design for a probe to Bernards star that would travel at 0.12C or 12% the speed of light

The Us navy also came up with an improved Daedalus design called project Longshot en.wikipedia.org...


(note I hate using wikipedia as a source but im in work so I cant access my proper reference sources and books on the subject)
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 12 days ago with 77 member flags
WARNING: 3D TV\'s Possibly Causing Strokes and Vision Loss
  Posted 18 days ago with 27 member flags
I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags
World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 13 days ago with 19 member flags
Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 5 days ago with 16 member flags
Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags
Unified Theory Visual Model Draft ver.9
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags