Project Orion (Future space propulsion)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Perhaps its time to take another look at Project Orion for long range space probes.

"Project Orion was a space vehicle propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the vehicle (1). The seeming absurdity of this idea is one of the reasons why Orion failed; yet, many prominent physicists worked on the concept and were convinced that it could be made practical. Since atomic bombs are discrete entities, the system had to operate in a pulsed rather than a continuous mode. It is similar in this respect to an automobile engine, in which the peak combustion temperatures far exceed the melting points of the cylinders and pistons. The engine remains intact because the period of peak temperature is brief compared to the combustion cycle period."

More info can be found at:
www.islandone.org...




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
FredT,
How the HECK did you know that I was just about to start a thread on the very same subject? This is really uncanny. Weird.

Anyways, here are the links I would have used:

www.angelfire.com...

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...


www.astronautix.com...





the most important things to note about this project is that it wouldn't have required in-space assembly and was essentially workable.





posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I forget to comment on how the crew was supposed to survive such atomic pulses...

The energy from these detonations would hit a 'pusher plate' on the back of the ship and push it forward (parts of the plate would ablate off). The crew would be spared from instant death by a giant shock absorber.

As crazy as this sounds, several well known scientists, including Freeman Dyson, worked on the project and deemed it viable. They also felt that, in time, it could produce a viable starship... and a swift solar system explorer in the near term. It's cost would also be reasonable... Orions could be built on earth and launched via Saturn rockets (no long assemblies in space needed because so much energy could be carried aloft in a small frame).

In the end, Orion was killed by politics, though the engineering behind it was solid.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The engineering behind it may be solid, but it is still an insane idea. For instance, the engineering behind the actual nuclear warhead is sound and viable... sure... but is it a great idea in terms of actual use? I wouldn't know really, but the populous of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be able to answer such a question far better than I could try to.

Furthermore, rockets are pretty much obsolete and should be replaced.
to the archaic technology that is only used because it lines the pockets of those who try to control the world.

A more effective form of propulsion is something that counters the forces of gravity or uses it in its favor. Such technology is feasible.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I've seen the proposals, and I don't think much of them. Theoretically it can work. On the practical side, it's not as efficient as some of our modern fuels and the problem of carrying enough U235 around has never been addressed (that I saw.)



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I've seen the proposals, and I don't think much of them. Theoretically it can work. On the practical side, it's not as efficient as some of our modern fuels and the problem of carrying enough U235 around has never been addressed (that I saw.)


It could be a good was to dispose of leftover plutonium and U235 though. Getting the stuff up there would be problematic though.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Yes... in our time I'd rather see something along the lines of developed ion drive technology... but this was a proposal that would have been built in the 1960s. For that time and technology, this would have been a major leap forward.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
i agree orion would work in theory it would
be good if you wanted something cheap
but i dont think the sheeples would go for it
heres a site with alot of infoNuclear Spaceit describes nuclear thermal propultion a
much better idea.

It involves putting h2 through a nuclear reactor to super
heat the gas and expel it through the nossel.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
With such wonderful technologies on the horizon. And considering our track record of boosting payloads into orbit. I have to believe that implementing project Orion would be a very dangerous endeavor. I for one can wait a while.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taeas
With such wonderful technologies on the horizon. And considering our track record of boosting payloads into orbit. I have to believe that implementing project Orion would be a very dangerous endeavor. I for one can wait a while.


Yea remeber the fuss when Cassini was launched with its radioisotope batteries, imagine if it were a delta IV with BTW 30 nuclear bombs. Green piece would have a coronary



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
First, I'm a member of the Australian Nuclear Disarmament Party, so I've got a bit of "background"...

Project Orion was simply dreamt up to GET RID OF EXCESS NUKES from Earth. So other reason...
Its (unfortunately) the ONLY WAY to dispose of thermonuclear devices...

Did you guys know that?;
(1) A nuclear device can NEVER BE DISARMED.
The current method of "disarming" a warhead, is to dismantle it, an pour MOLASSES in it, then stash it away in a Vaccum Silo (often near Fault-Lines), underground. Thats the 21st century way...

Oh, I lie, there is another way you can DISARM it - by detonating the bastard!
Thats humanity's options for disposal. NO OTHERS!

Oh, and Ion engines have been around for years.
Remember Deep Space 1?



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixataar
Project Orion was simply dreamt up to GET RID OF EXCESS NUKES from Earth. So other reason...
Its (unfortunately) the ONLY WAY to dispose of thermonuclear devices...

Did you guys know that?;
(1) A nuclear device can NEVER BE DISARMED.
The current method of "disarming" a warhead, is to dismantle it, an pour MOLASSES in it, then stash it away in a Vaccum Silo (often near Fault-Lines), underground. Thats the 21st century way...


So were exactly are these storage sites? Also, disarming the nuke is actually simple. Take it apart. What are you basing your molassas theory on? Once apart the plutonium or uranium may become an issue, but stuff like Tritium will make its way onto watches. Why do they need to put in a vacume silo?

Nobody is really advocating a return to Project Orion. It was simply an interesting facet of the cold war IMHO. However, the pricipals and the physics are sound. But as with everything its a theory untill its tested.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Mate, its not a theory, its the way its done...

Its the USA's (and former Soviet States) most high-tech way of doing it.
And mate, YOU CANNOT DISARM A NUKE WEAPON. YOU CAN'T!

Like I said before, you can dismantle it, not disarm it.

ALL the vaccum silos (in the USA) are stationed under Military Bases (probably near your Home-Town)



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ixataar
Its the USA's (and former Soviet States) most high-tech way of doing it.
And mate, YOU CANNOT DISARM A NUKE WEAPON. YOU CAN'T!


As we say in the states, Show me the money. Or show me references adn studies etc that back that up. I did read a fictional story once about a russian who shoreted out a nuc with his hip flask of vodka. Better yet, Goldfinger was just on Bond tried to disarm the nuc at Fort Knox by yanking out the wires. Man if anybody could do it it would be 007



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Ixataar, it is perfectly feasible to dismantle a nuclear warhead, and that is all you need to do.

You don't need to destroy the actual uranium/plutonium used - that's just ludicrous. You can take the weapons apart by simply moving a small piece of the detonation ring and disarming the electrical charges. You'd get the charges first.

After the charges you look for the 'key-piece' of the detonation ring, a hollowed sphere of high explosives that blasts at once and creates the chain reaction. Once the 'key-piece' is gone, you can just pull the other bits of the ring off (carefully, I might add) and remove the material inside (commonly plutonium). The plutonium is then disposed of by one means or another, which would be the scare tactics you're using.

"near a fault line", "near your home-town" - give me a break. You think we'll believe propagandist slurs like this? Go back to your disarmament party, we know nukes are bad, but by lying about them and spreading disinformation you do nothing but make us hate you and like the nukes. So just settle down, and think about this.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Viendin,
don’t call me a liar you prick.

I DON’T MAKE (CENSORED) LIKE THIS UP!

Now, first no nation is going to admit where they STASH their dismantled Nukes!

About the most reliable info you’ll get, is something like this…
From;
www.viewzone.com...
“The Yamantau Mountain complex is located close to one of Russia's remaining nuclear weapons labs, Chelyabinsk-70, giving rise to speculation it could house either a nuclear warhead storage site,…”

From;
www.ucsusa.org...

“All warheads would be removed from US and Russian delivery vehicles and placed in verifiable storage.”

“Other De-alerting Options from Bruce Blair
1. "Safe" Russian silo-based missiles and US Minuteman III and MX missiles by inserting a pin into the motor ignition mechanism, blocking ignition. This process could be reversed by crews entering the silo and pulling the pin. The entire US silo-based force could be realerted in twelve hours.
2. Remove the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) from US MX missiles. The IMU, part of the MX's guidance system, could be stored on-site. Reinstallation of the IMU takes longer than reversing the "safing" step, and thus the MX force would take 15 hours to realert rather than 10.”

Deactive, dismantle, but NEVER Disarm! The nuke scientists know it!;
“Stage 3
The United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France in combination, would reduce warheads to a level of 200 each, with most of that number being deactivated. Goodby and Feiveson believe this stage could be completed by 2015-2020. The two believe each country could have as few as ten warheads deployed. This force level would be able to inflict severe damage on an aggressor, but would lack the power to destroy a retaliatory force.”

The “Vaccum Heart” of the Nuke;
From;
www.cheniere.org...
“Now if you suddenly and drastically change the stress of the vacuum in which a radioactive nucleus is imbedded, you change the potential placed on the unbalanced nucleus. You hit it, in other words, with a strong EG potential pulse -- an EGP. That instantly unbalances the nucleus and it decays explosively. That is, it changes the decay constant and the probability of decay.
Basically that's what happens in a nuclear implosion weapon: You hit the radioactive hunk of material in the center with a very high, imploding pressure wave, which is carrying an EGP. The EGP causes all the nuclei to decay nearly instantly, producing a nuclear explosion.”

And, to finish. I am not the master of disinformation, I’m just speaking the truth;

Again, from;
www.ucsusa.org...
“Conclusion
A system of de-alerting would support arms control initiatives agreed to in the START treaties. The proposals outlined in this paper increase transparency by facilitating information-sharing and wider disclosure. Large numbers of nuclear weapons would be deactivated, creating a more stable global environment. De-alerting offers a real chance to reduce the dangers inherent in a nuclear-armed world and to lay the groundwork for a nuclear weapon-free world.”

I’d rather be part of the solution mate, than part of the problem, like wankers like you...



[edit on 5-7-2004 by Ixataar]

[edit on 5-7-2004 by Ixataar]



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Dude, some of the missiles are disarmed by treaty obligations, and the warheads are placed in storage. If the scenario you have gone great lenghts to try to prove did exist, we would litterly be swimming in atomic weapons. according to one anti nuke website the US produced 67,000+
www.brook.edu...

I may trip over one when I go to work eh? The Plutonium and Uranium cannot be broken down, but the bomb case, and other components are taken apart. The Plutonium and U235 etc can be recycled back into other weapons. To learn more about the process:
www.bullatomsci.org...


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
a hollowed sphere of high explosives that blasts at once and creates the chain reaction.

Those are there just to raise the density of fission core to supercritical.
(and implosion must be symmetrical, otherwise it's just dirty bomb spreading radioactive material)

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ixataar
The “Vaccum Heart” of the Nuke;
From;
www.cheniere.org...
“Now if you suddenly and drastically change the stress of the vacuum in which a radioactive nucleus is imbedded, you change the potential placed on the unbalanced nucleus. You hit it, in other words, with a strong EG potential pulse -- an EGP. That instantly unbalances the nucleus and it decays explosively. That is, it changes the decay constant and the probability of decay.
Basically that's what happens in a nuclear implosion weapon: You hit the radioactive hunk of material in the center with a very high, imploding pressure wave, which is carrying an EGP. The EGP causes all the nuclei to decay nearly instantly, producing a nuclear explosion.”

Something stinks there!
Like this:

A giant EGP strikes the earth, spreads in all directions, and strikes the waiting monster missiles. In their implosion trigger warheads and in their fissionable and fusionable payload, everything goes at once.

If that EGP is powerful enough to directly ignite fusion then exploding nukes are smallest of your worries!


nuclearweaponarchive.org...

[edit on 6-7-2004 by E_T]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join