Excellent Project Orion Documentary

[Northstar1989]

I highly recommend taking the time to watch this BBC documentary on Project Orion (the nuclear-pulse rocket that is still the best, cheapest, and perhaps only way we'll even send large payloads to other planets)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCszu4zaqr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCszu4zaqr0

Feel free to discuss here your thoughts on this. And share the documentary on as much of the internet as you have the time- Facebook, Twitter, etc. I still feel Project Orion is mankind's best hope of ever colonizing the solar system, and not nearly enough people know about it.

Regards,

Northstar

[Nibb31]

Why a new thread ? There are already dozens of threads on the subject.

[Northstar1989]

Why a new thread ? There are already dozens of threads on the subject.

This thread is dedicated specifically to this documentary.

Are there other threads on Project Orion? Yes, absolutely. But threads only have a limited lifespan anyways, and it's entirely unreasonable to ask me to go an dig up an old thread and necro it when there's plenty of room for new threads on this subforum...

Regards,

Northstar

[Nibb31]

I find it preferable to necro an old thread to add new content to a discussion where there was lots of very interesting stuff rather than to start over again by asking everyone to repost the exact same arguments every couple of months. If existing content is simply ignored, then it's a waste to contribute anything meaningful in the forum anymore. You might as well just wipe the forum every two months and restart the same discussions all over again.

Also, that documentary was mentioned in some of those other threads.

[crazyewok]

Forget Nibb31 he has a bee in his bonnet about anything to do with nuclear propulsion if it was up to him he woud have mentioning of Orion punishable by death. Theirs a few others on here that will jump on you too.

[Nibb31]

I have no problem with nuclear propulsion. I have problems with unrealistic proposals.

There are two ways of getting something like an Orion spacecraft into space:

- Launching an Orion spacecraft: Atmospheric nuclear blasts are a non-starter.

- Orbital assembly: Hundreds of conventional launches and decades of work in LEO to build.

In addition, nuclear bombs are not cheap and their mass production carries all sorts of proliferation problems.

But again, these problems have been discussed to death already. The idea is entertaining in (in a Fallout alternate universe kind of way), but totally unrealistic. I see no point in rehashing the same old arguments again and again.

[CaptainKipard]

Freeman Dyson looks appropriately like Zefram Cochrane.

And that is my trivial comment for this month. Good day.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[lajoswinkler]

You might as well just wipe the forum every two months and restart the same discussions all over again.

Exactly.

Some people simply feel the need to open new threads on existing stuff and like to perpetuate the notion that necroing old threads is something absolutely wrong. It's ridiculous.

[acc]

nice documentary, thanks for sharing.

[crazyewok]

I have no problem with nuclear propulsion. I have problems with unrealistic proposals.

There are two ways of getting something like an Orion spacecraft into space:

- Launching an Orion spacecraft: Atmospheric nuclear blasts are a non-starter.

- Orbital assembly: Hundreds of conventional launches and decades of work in LEO to build.

There was a third proposed using the Nova variant of the Saturn V

[rtxoff]

I've seen that already, anyway nice docu.

[R0cketC0der]

I haven't watched the documentation yet, but I like the general concept of project orion. Until the second a launch fails and you get a huge mess.

There was a third proposed using the Nova variant of the Saturn V

Nova wasn't a variant of the Saturn V, it was a proposed series of rockets. Most of them were larger that the Saturn V, but there were also some designs smaller than the Saturn V. Saying "the Nova varian of the Saturn V" is equivalent to saying "the Lord of the Rings variant of Star Wars 6".

[crazyewok]

I haven't watched the documentation yet, but I like the general concept of project orion. Until the second a launch fails and you get a huge mess.

Nova wasn't a variant of the Saturn V, it was a proposed series of rockets. Most of them were larger that the Saturn V, but there were also some designs smaller than the Saturn V. Saying "the Nova varian of the Saturn V" is equivalent to saying "the Lord of the Rings variant of Star Wars 6".

I always thought there was a link between the two? Guess I was wrong. But there was plan to launch a Orion up on one anyway.

[R0cketC0der]

I always thought there was a link between the two? Guess I was wrong. But there was plan to launch a Orion up on one anyway.

There were some designs which were pretty similar(the Nova C-8 was almost identical with the Saturn C-8) and rockets from both series were proposed for the Apollo program.

[crazyewok]

There were some designs which were pretty similar(the Nova C-8 was almost identical with the Saturn C-8) and rockets from both series were proposed for the Apollo program.

To be honest I dont know much about the Nova project except it was suggested they stick Orion on one. A Saturn V was also suggested too if I remember correctly though I think that would have to be sent up in 2 or 3 parts.

[Nibb31]

You're confused. The Orion Project never got assigned to a launch vehicle because it was supposed to launch itself. It was a paper study that was scrapped as soon as it became clear that the whole concept was a dead-end.

The proposed nuclear Saturn variant was the C5-N which used a NERVA-based upper stage instead of the S-IVB. NERVA was totally unrelated to Orion. NTR technology was more feasible, but the performance gains weren't worth the drawbacks, which is why it was also scrapped.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

You're confused. The Orion Project never got assigned to a launch vehicle because it was supposed to launch itself. It was a paper study that was scrapped as soon as it became clear that the whole concept was a dead-end.

The nuclear Saturn variant was the C5-N which used a NERVA-based upper stage instead of the S-IVB. NERVA was totally unrelated to Orion.

Nope im not confused. Certainly not mixing NERVA and Orion up here.

When it became clear that fallout may be a issue they actually considered launching to orbit. Even Von Braun was brought in.

Remember is was a scientific dead end just a political one. Scientifically the consensus was that likely it would have worked. It was the test ban treaty, defence and nuclear safety concerns that killed it.

Source is for the Saturn and Nova plans Project Orion the atmoc spaceship by George dyson pages 238-253

[Nibb31]

It doesn't matter if it's a scientific dead-end, an economical one, or a political one. It's still a dead-end.

It might be fun to consider it in an alternate-universe sci-fi story, but it's impractical and unrealistic in the real-world.

[Airlock]

Here's a link to the General Atomics 10 meter Orion study: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/supplement/GA-5009vIII.pdf

There indeed were plans to launch a small nuclear pulse rocket on a Saturn V, either in sections to be assembled in orbit, or to be lofted by a single lifter half-way to orbit.

There were also design plans that had 20+ meter Orions being launched by something akin to a NOVA or a Convair Nexus.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nexus.htm

I wonder if the 130t SLS could do something like this.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Airlock

[crazyewok]

It doesn't matter if it's a scientific dead-end, an economical one, or a political one. It's still a dead-end.

I beg to differ.

A scientific barrier due to the laws of physics means you cant do something full stop.

A political barrier is a human imposed barrier that can be changed.

It might be fun to consider it in an alternate-universe sci-fi story, but it's impractical and unrealistic in the real-world.

Again id beg to differ.

With 1960's tec Il conceded and say yeah it was a stupid idea.

With today's tec? Maybe insane but with say a conventional launch system and change in law? I wouldn't be against it. But the question would be why would we need too? there are better cheaper ways to get to mars, only Jupiter + would it be worth it

Future? Well I dont know what technology we will have in 10 years time let alone 100 so for all I know certain scientific and political breakthroughs could make the safety aspects of it much more tolerable in which case go for it! Unless we have something far better.

[lajoswinkler]

If it was to be used for lifting equipment made to divert an Earth impactor, I'd be all for it.

If it would be used as a method of lifting stuff because reasons, I'd be strongly against it. The radionuclide contamination is horrific. Also, EMPs.

[crazyewok]

If it was to be used for lifting equipment made to divert an Earth impactor, I'd be all for it.

If it would be used as a method of lifting stuff because reasons, I'd be strongly against it. The radionuclide contamination is horrific. Also, EMPs.

Well they found ways round the radionuclide contamination or at least to minimise it, IE launch far out at sea, use high efficiency nukes, directed explosions ect. Basiclay the tricks not to launch it over or next to a city Some at the beginning they said it would kill 12 worldwide per launch, later after some readjustments <1. Now seeing as that's far less than random deaths caused by cars or trains worldwide I would not be too fussed but that personal opinion. Anyway the USA and Russia denoted more bombs in the cold war for more pointless reasons IE to show off.

My main worry as you pointed out would be EMP damage. One launch and half the worlds satellites are out. That's the biggest issue for me.

Edited August 7, 2014 by crazyewok

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

Horrible quality footage of the trinity test in the start of the video apparently tells us its genuine.

[Airlock]

Well they found ways round the radionuclide contamination or at least to minimise it, IE launch far out at sea, use high efficiency nukes, directed explosions ect. Basiclay the tricks not to launch it over or next to a city Some at the beginning they said it would kill 12 worldwide per launch, later after some readjustments <1. Now seeing as that's far less than random deaths caused by cars or trains worldwide I would not be too fussed but that personal opinion. Anyway the USA and Russia denoted more bombs in the cold war for more pointless reasons IE to show off.

My main worry as you pointed out would be EMP damage. One launch and half the worlds satellites are out. That's the biggest issue for me.

There were also plans to coat the entire launch site in graphite so that launches would produce little to no fallout.

EMP wouldn't have been as much of an issue as one would assume. Orion warhead sizes were relatively small (in the kiloton range rather than megaton) compared to the bombs needed to create a substantial EMP.

Read here for everything you need to know about Orion: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Pulse

"A more sophisticated objection to using Orion inside an atmosphere is the sci-fi horror of EMP melting all our computers, making our smart phones explode, and otherwise ruining anything using electricity. But that actually is not much of a problem. EMP is not a concern unless the detonation is larger than one megaton or so, Orion propulsion charges are only a few kilotons (one one-thousandth of a megaton). Ben Pearson did an analysis and concluded that Orion charges would only have EMP effects within a radius of 276 kilometers (the International Space Station has an orbital height of about 370 kilometers). So just be sure your launch site is in a remote location, which you probably would have done anyway."

[Nibb31]

I beg to differ.

A scientific barrier due to the laws of physics means you cant do something full stop.

A political barrier is a human imposed barrier that can be changed.

Well, good luck with that. No way will you or any politician ever get public support to cancel the atmospheric nuclear test ban. Ever.

When the drawbacks of a technology outweigh the benefits 10 to 1, then it can be considered impractical.