How to Use Nuclear Bombs to Lift a Giant Spaceship

This may sound crazy but beginning in 1947 and taking of in the 1950’s work was put under way to power a spaceship by exploding nuclear bombs beneath it. This is not as absurd as it may sound. When the first ever nuclear bomb was tested it was blown up on a metal tower. Well bits of this metal tower could still be found after the explosion. The main reason for this is that they were carried with the nuclear blast more than they resisted it.

1. Here is a good link: www.daviddarling.info...
2. Here is good information link to project Orion…
www.islandone.org...
3. This is the Wikipedia link to back it up en.wikipedia.org...
4. More links: www.angelfire.com...

I have fallen in love with this idea. I mean it’s so great the idea of lifting something quite easily larger than the Titanic into space.
And you would only have to launch it once. Because once it’s up there you have industry in space. With the stuff that you could put on board you could be mining metal on the moon within a few weeks after launch, the metal would arrive in the earths atmosphere but could be collected once its on the ground (providing computers were used to make sure it arrived in the right desserts(s).
Launch another one and within a few years you could be building mankind’s first Star Ship Enterprise, and perhaps working towards restoring the climate on mars.

With the cold war over the time for this project has arrived, but unlike the Cold War there isn’t the money or will to do it.
But in the event I came to power I would suggest giving the project for the U.N to bless. This way nobody could use the nuclear proliferation argument. And if the U.N doesn’t like it maybe China will give the idea some thought some day? Think about it the pride of 1.2 billion people from nation that doesn’t allow a few leftists to defeat its will.

All agreed though, that project Orion deserves the thumbs up?

Without project Orion my opinion is that manned space craft is pretty much a waist of time. Why not use machines instead? (And unlike nuclear power conventional rockets are hardly carbon free).

P.S I did read that fallout could kill a few people, but people get killed by cars every day. This is a permanent achievement that would last under mankind’s name possibly longer than we will last on this earth. A few people? It’s like saying the threat of falling of a roof doesn’t justify extending a house.

I have a book which talks about this, but only in space, that is to say you'd have a spaceship with a huge blast sheild at the rear-end, where you'd detonate the nuke, and the blast would propel you forward. In fact there was an ALIENS comic book from Dark Horse (I think) in which they had a ship like this and the nukes were kept in a tube which ran vertically along the ship, and there were dozens of them which would be released from the pipe and exploded at a precise sequence.

But I don't think it'd work as a lifting device because the air pressure would create shock waves that'd destroy the ship. I am guessing that a nuke which pushes something heavy at it's blast front (like compressed air) is going to be much worse than in space.

Interesting post! Any idea that proposes a use for nukes other than melting humans is okay with me.


[edit on 7-6-2006 by smallpeeps]

Project Orion was an interesting notion, but IMHO the risks outweight the inherent dangers. As we have learned from 2 space shuttle disasters and numerous rocket explosions, lofting that much fissile material is too dangerous. Can you imagine if several kilos of weapons grade plutonium were vaporized and scattered by upper atmosphere winds

Just FYI this was one of the first threads I posted here on ATS



Project Orion (Future space propulsion)

Originally posted by FredT
Can you imagine if several kilos of weapons grade plutonium were vaporized and scattered by upper atmosphere winds

Scary thought. We would need a much more reliable system than we currently have, even then that above line makes the risk too high IMHO.

Of course there are going to be risks associated with strapping a nuke to a space shuttle but like liberal84 said earlier that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

The next quetion we should be asking is, are there ways around those dangers.

Personally, I am optimistic not merely because of the newest and latest technologies and discoveries but also because of man's intuit ability of problem solving.

Some solutions around this potential problem include assembling it out of the earth's atmoshpere,

While people consider heat to be generally a bad thing for space shuttles and aircraft we often forget that heat can generate electricity as well. Another way to put that is you can recycle heat into either propulsion or power for your ps3 and flat screen.

www.howstuffworks.com...

www.spacedaily.com...

Do you think it was safe when the submariner went under and returned up for the first time, or when the first pilot took the first plane or the first jet up, of course it wasn't however it needed to be done and the successful results of those experiments are the reason why people today feel safer in a jet than in a car.

Like Liberal84 said, this tech has been around since 1948 or so, when was Roswell 1947? Gee those dates seem damn close to me. If our government was testing a nuclear-powered military/space based craft(flying saucer) could they tell the public about it? No, of course they couldn't, the public would be terrified that one might crash and take out Massachusetts or something of similar size.

The way I look at Nuclear Powered Manned Space Craft is that it is inevitable. The US already has Space Probes and Submarines that are powered by Nukes why wouldn't they want to put a superior power system into a fighter or bomber or a black space shuttle. If they don't do it, the competition will! The US could build a Nuclear Powered Space Shuttle as a replacement to the current shuttle which would easily be faster and more reliable. When the US built the current shuttles back in the 60's they promised Americans that it would fly as many times as 50 a year. The current space shuttle never flew more than 12 times in one year the year was 1985. How much less dependable could a space shuttle be.

Usually with something that involves risk, the greater the risk the greater the reward. While the risk is certainly high and could potentially be catastrophic by nuke powered space craft exploding in our atmosphere causing damage to our atmosphere etc wouldn't not acting, not pursuing this type of technology be the greater catastrophy? We could be letting the good side of nuclear energy/technology go just because of the ugly conotations we have with the word "nuclear."

Personally I do not believe there is one physical object out there that is evil except for man and woman. With that said it is what we do with these objects that makes that object be seen by others as being good or evil. Every object has the potential for good and the potential for evil. It is what we decide to make with them.

Great topic here.

Smallpeeps
Many of the problems you quite rightfully brought up were solved by the scientists working on the project.
The shockwave problem caused by a nuclear blast was solved by making Orion BIG. The bigger the thing is, the less the shockwave problem will be. And increasing the mass helps reduce the size of the jerks. But you’re quite right that a mini Orion would never work.
Then again if you’re going to use 40 plus Nuke's to get something into space it would be a shame to waste them by only taking up a space buggy!!

Low Orbit
The problem of nukes crashing down onto earth is mostly solved by only arming most of them in flight. As for the radiation problem we can already build containers that can survive a fall from space, so i guess the plutonium would have to be stored in little "boxes".
Fall out was a big problem but apparently the U.S found a way to reduce it by only using a small amount plutonium to create a small nuclear bomb. Trouble is its a secret in case terrorists were to get hold of it. But no doubt with the right documentation it could be greatly improved further using today’s computers. In fact it probably already given the existence of Bush's "mini nuke" project.

So the surprising thing is just about all the problems (accept the will to do it) have already been solved. I'm not denying there's risks but as you point out everything has risks.

In today’s world I think Orion has China's name on it.

But at least it means we have a way of evacuating the earth should we really need to. But you have to ask "how long would it take to build a town on the moon or mars?" With project Orion I think about 10 years depending on how many trips or shuttles you sent. And if I were in charge I would try and minimise the amount of launches. So whatever I built it would always be bigger enough to make the Titanic seem small. But think about because in one launch you could send more material up than the whole of mankind had in the previous 50 years.

I know it’s a dream for now; but someday this WILL happen (unless we wipe ourselves out on earth before then).

What a ride!

Just close your eyes for a second and imagine what it would be like to be sitting in an Orion when the bombs start falling...

Originally posted by vorlance
Just close your eyes for a second and imagine what it would be like to be sitting in an Orion when the bombs start falling...

I'm not sure, but judging by the "flame" at the end of your post, I think that that was sarcasm... So, I think that the bombs going off would be a lot of fun. Why? Because they would be providing the thrust for the ship. Might be a bit bumpy, though...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by vorlance]

I think that the G forces would turn everyone on that ship into a pile of blubber.
But hey....I have a BFA not a PHD in rocket science.

This is another cool Project Orion image...

How would the EMP problem be handled?

For that matter, how would the radioactivity from the blast be kept out of the atmosphere?

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
How would the EMP problem be handled?

For that matter, how would the radioactivity from the blast be kept out of the atmosphere?

Important Safety Tip:

Never operate an Orion class vessel within a biosphere.

Things die.

So what happens in the upper atmosphere when the nukes have no air to act against? It is the air being pushed by the explosion's energy that is the real power of a nuclear blast.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
So what happens in the upper atmosphere when the nukes have no air to act against? It is the air being pushed by the explosion's energy that is the real power of a nuclear blast.

Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

This means detonating nukes in the vacuum of space, done in the correct way,
are able to provide thrust to a ship. Hey, it's a overly messy and wildly energetic means of spaceflight but it would work. It would also be a creative way to get rid of our bombs when we grow up as a species.

I imagine the Orion class of ship would be great for getting around in our solar system. However, we'd have to switch to some entirely different drive if we ever wanted to get to the nearest stars in resonable amounts of time.

Originally posted by vorlance
Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

This means detonating nukes in the vacuum of space, done in the correct way,
are able to provide thrust to a ship. Hey, it's a overly messy and wildly energetic means of spaceflight but it would work. It would also be a creative way to get rid of our bombs when we grow up as a species.

I imagine the Orion class of ship would be great for getting around in our solar system. However, we'd have to switch to some entirely different drive if we ever wanted to get to the nearest stars in resonable amounts of time.

I understand Newton's Third Law. However as the density of the atmosphere decreases the initial "action" of the nuclear explosion will decrease, resulting in a decrease in the "reaction".

Your statement says "done in the correct way", would you please elaborate on that?

Your statement says "done in the correct way", would you please elaborate on that?

Oh, I mean per the spec with the drive system; one detonation every second I believe... Wouldn't want a fuel bomb to "accidently" go flying off and hit some poor unsuspecting sap, now would we? hehehe

Insurance on it would be astronomical!