Project Orion: A discussion of Science and Science Fiction

[AtomicTech]

11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. No nuclear arms control treaties because the US has to keep building bombs to keep the program going

2. USSR starts a counter project with PK-3000 and PK-5000 (their Orion equivalents)

3. Nuclear weapons testing continues to the present day

4. On March 19th, 1975, an undetected asteroid collides with the Earth in the Persian Gulf, destroying most mammalian and sea life

5. Guinea pigs, on the opposite side of the world, survive the mass extinction, along with other South American rodents

6. Millions of years later, the rodents evolve to become the dominant species on the planet

7. Rodents, due to their nature, do not form divisive tribes as humans did, and thus successfully pioneers towards interstellar travel instead of endless conflict

8. In the midst of a massive interstellar colonization program, rodents encounter the other "intelligent" species of this universe, and successfully destroy and enslave them in conflict

9. The rodents ruthlessly terraform different worlds as part of their colonization program

10. The rodents do the same but intergalactically

11. The rodents develop inter-universal travel and proceed to subjugate the near infinite series of worlds under their rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness though, one can kind of do anything they want within this scenario. Kennedy could probably not get Orion approved because of pro-arms control activists, let alone Congress' disgust at the potential price tag. To get Orion to happen, you probably need to have a series of events which would include-

1. Stalin living longer + a politician who continues Stalin's policies in power in the USSR. This closes any interest from either side towards arms control treaties (or treaties of any kind for that matter) and eliminates the anti-nuclear movement issue. It also increases the intensity of Cold War paranoia, which would get Congress to support Orion.

2. Get the Soviets to win the Moon Race.

3. Get the US to initiate a Mars Race (Second Space Race). This depends on the US public being able to support these "space races", and to do that, you need to maintain public trust in the government in the 60s and 70s, which means-

4. Don't let the US get further involved Vietnam beyond advisors. One needs to keep Kennedy alive to do this probably. Stephen Baxter does this by having Jacqueline killed instead of John. This also clears up funding for Orion. By the way, something like four times the Apollo program budget was what the US spent per day fighting in Vietnam in 1968.

5. But with no Vietnam, you never have counter culture and its butterfly effect on US thinking. What that will do to technological development is unknown. Assuming women have been important in innovation since the mid 20th century, expect technology to be a bit more backwards. Because of Cold War paranoia, the DOD may keep some of the early internet concepts under their control. And while different universities had their own networks which might form some sort of internet equivalent, because of cultural standards that don't really depart from the 1950s (because no Vietnam to trigger that change, and we need no Vietnam to fund Orion) you could see some sort of censorship to protect against "radicalism" and "communist propaganda". And while an internet equivalent might come to form in the Communist Bloc (probably no Sino-Soviet split btw if there is no de-Stalinization) it will not be linked with the Western version. The internet will still have the effects it has had on culture and thinking, but under the control of two groups of conservatives, so instead of the spread of information and free movement of ideas, there would be an entrenchment of ideas and further hardening of stances on two sides vehemently opposed to eachother.

The issue with all of this though is that it lets Cold War tension escalate out of control and possibly eliminates the Soviet Union's economic issues in the 70s and 80s. Which means the Cold War will never end. So you might get humans on Mars by the 1980s, but you are left with a world that will perpetually be divided, always on the brink of devastation.

Yeah, I think I'm happy with the way things turned out.

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. No nuclear arms control treaties because the US has to keep building bombs to keep the program going

2. USSR starts a counter project with PK-3000 and PK-5000 (their Orion equivalents)

3. Nuclear weapons testing continues to the present day

4. On March 19th, 1975, an undetected asteroid collides with the Earth in the Persian Gulf, destroying most mammalian and sea life

5. Guinea pigs, on the opposite side of the world, survive the mass extinction, along with other South American rodents

6. Millions of years later, the rodents evolve to become the dominant species on the planet

7. Rodents, due to their nature, do not form divisive tribes as humans did, and thus successfully pioneers towards interstellar travel instead of endless conflict

8. In the midst of a massive interstellar colonization program, rodents encounter the other "intelligent" species of this universe, and successfully destroy and enslave them in conflict

9. The rodents ruthlessly terraform different worlds as part of their colonization program

10. The rodents do the same but intergalactically

11. The rodents develop inter-universal travel and proceed to subjugate the near infinite series of worlds under their rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness though, one can kind of do anything they want within this scenario. Kennedy could probably not get Orion approved because of pro-arms control activists, let alone Congress' disgust at the potential price tag. To get Orion to happen, you probably need to have a series of events which would include-

1. Stalin living longer + a politician who continues Stalin's policies in power in the USSR. This closes any interest from either side towards arms control treaties (or treaties of any kind for that matter) and eliminates the anti-nuclear movement issue. It also increases the intensity of Cold War paranoia, which would get Congress to support Orion.

2. Get the Soviets to win the Moon Race.

3. Get the US to initiate a Mars Race (Second Space Race). This depends on the US public being able to support these "space races", and to do that, you need to maintain public trust in the government in the 60s and 70s, which means-

4. Don't let the US get further involved Vietnam beyond advisors. One needs to keep Kennedy alive to do this probably. Stephen Baxter does this by having Jacqueline killed instead of John. This also clears up funding for Orion. By the way, something like four times the Apollo program budget was what the US spent per day fighting in Vietnam in 1968.

5. But with no Vietnam, you never have counter culture and its butterfly effect on US thinking. What that will do to technological development is unknown. Assuming women have been important in innovation since the mid 20th century, expect technology to be a bit more backwards. Because of Cold War paranoia, the DOD may keep some of the early internet concepts under their control. And while different universities had their own networks which might form some sort of internet equivalent, because of cultural standards that don't really depart from the 1950s (because no Vietnam to trigger that change, and we need no Vietnam to fund Orion) you could see some sort of censorship to protect against "radicalism" and "communist propaganda". And while an internet equivalent might come to form in the Communist Bloc (probably no Sino-Soviet split btw if there is no de-Stalinization) it will not be linked with the Western version. The internet will still have the effects it has had on culture and thinking, but under the control of two groups of conservatives, so instead of the spread of information and free movement of ideas, there would be an entrenchment of ideas and further hardening of stances on two sides vehemently opposed to eachother.

The issue with all of this though is that it lets Cold War tension escalate out of control and possibly eliminates the Soviet Union's economic issues in the 70s and 80s. Which means the Cold War will never end. So you might get humans on Mars by the 1980s, but you are left with a world that will perpetually be divided, always on the brink of devastation.

The first one, no Orion pulse nuclear at the opposite of stealthy, the idea of using one to redirect an dinosaur killer asteroid in a couple of years. And you would need much more powerful bombs to move the asteroid in reasonable time. 

The second one is much more plausible, except that the Soviet will get even more economic problems because higher space spending. Now China might be able to pull them out of this if they repeat the Chinese miracle but this will not not happen if both countries stays Stalinist and I don't think US will open up for Chinese imports. I guess both goes down an North Korea route this is obviously extremely dangerous and could easy end in WW 3 probably triggered by an civil war involving nuclear weapons 

This setting makes me think of an book I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_People , we discovered in the 50's that both Mars and Venus was habitable and a lot like the pulp science fiction writers thought it would be. 
Venus has dinosaurs and both Mars and Venus has humans. Some aliens had an pet project and had teraformed both worlds 200 million years ago and moved plants and animals from earth to both of them. 
Effect is that the space race never ends and its no Vietnam war, also most of the cold war fueled proxy wars on earth don't happen or is less supported. 
However here the cold war cools down the Soviets does Chinese style reforms pretty early, China follows and at the time of the books China is top dog of that faction in practice. 
Both factions has +100 people bases on both planets, much easier then environment is earth like. 
No Orions, nuclear thermal spaceships and two stage fully reusable spaceplanes, much cargo is delivered by solar sails powered drop pods. 

[benzman]

I remember someone saying that an Orion ship operating would be 'Not a pretty sight,' I have to agree.

[KSK]

I can thoroughly recommend ‘Project Orion’ by George Dyson (son of Freeman Dyson who worked on the project) as background reading for anyone wanting to do an Orion alternate history.

It’s not particularly heavy going and is at least as much about the politics and history of Orion as the technology. Plus it gives you a (very rough) idea of the level of nuclear technology you need before Orion becomes feasible.

Edit. It’s also an excellent ‘sci-fi writer level’ overview of the things you need to consider when building an Orion craft.

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by KSK

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The first one, no Orion pulse nuclear at the opposite of stealthy, the idea of using one to redirect an dinosaur killer asteroid in a couple of years. And you would need much more powerful bombs to move the asteroid in reasonable time. 

The second one is much more plausible, except that the Soviet will get even more economic problems because higher space spending. Now China might be able to pull them out of this if they repeat the Chinese miracle but this will not not happen if both countries stays Stalinist and I don't think US will open up for Chinese imports. I guess both goes down an North Korea route this is obviously extremely dangerous and could easy end in WW 3 probably triggered by an civil war involving nuclear weapons 

This setting makes me think of an book I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_People , we discovered in the 50's that both Mars and Venus was habitable and a lot like the pulp science fiction writers thought it would be. 
Venus has dinosaurs and both Mars and Venus has humans. Some aliens had an pet project and had teraformed both worlds 200 million years ago and moved plants and animals from earth to both of them. 
Effect is that the space race never ends and its no Vietnam war, also most of the cold war fueled proxy wars on earth don't happen or is less supported. 
However here the cold war cools down the Soviets does Chinese style reforms pretty early, China follows and at the time of the books China is top dog of that faction in practice. 
Both factions has +100 people bases on both planets, much easier then environment is earth like. 
No Orions, nuclear thermal spaceships and two stage fully reusable spaceplanes, much cargo is delivered by solar sails powered drop pods. 

The first one was a sarcastic scenario intended to critique alternate history with no limits. The asteroid hits the Earth, no re-direction.

For the second one I am unsure because I haven't seen an economic assessment of what an Orion-type space program would cost. Obviously not cheap, you need multiple nuclear devices after all, but whether it would really matter considering how large each side's nuclear stockpile was, I don't know. What is 200 more bombs when you are already going to build 14000? But I may be wrong of course.

In any case though, I also think that hypothetical world is going to end with a nuclear exchange. At least the humans got to Mars though...

[derega16]

22 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. No nuclear arms control treaties because the US has to keep building bombs to keep the program going

2. USSR starts a counter project with PK-3000 and PK-5000 (their Orion equivalents)

3. Nuclear weapons testing continues to the present day

4. On March 19th, 1975, an undetected asteroid collides with the Earth in the Persian Gulf, destroying most mammalian and sea life

5. Guinea pigs, on the opposite side of the world, survive the mass extinction, along with other South American rodents

6. Millions of years later, the rodents evolve to become the dominant species on the planet

7. Rodents, due to their nature, do not form divisive tribes as humans did, and thus successfully pioneers towards interstellar travel instead of endless conflict

8. In the midst of a massive interstellar colonization program, rodents encounter the other "intelligent" species of this universe, and successfully destroy and enslave them in conflict

9. The rodents ruthlessly terraform different worlds as part of their colonization program

10. The rodents do the same but intergalactically

11. The rodents develop inter-universal travel and proceed to subjugate the near infinite series of worlds under their rule.

I need a guinea pig portrait for Stellaris

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The first one was a sarcastic scenario intended to critique alternate history with no limits. The asteroid hits the Earth, no re-direction.

For the second one I am unsure because I haven't seen an economic assessment of what an Orion-type space program would cost. Obviously not cheap, you need multiple nuclear devices after all, but whether it would really matter considering how large each side's nuclear stockpile was, I don't know. What is 200 more bombs when you are already going to build 14000? But I may be wrong of course.

In any case though, I also think that hypothetical world is going to end with a nuclear exchange. At least the humans got to Mars though...

 

A nuclear exchange sends many countries back to the 19th century... but won't end all tech. People would rebuild. Want to know the great irony? An Earth nuked silly is still more habital than mars... and I reckon without Earth support a mars colony WILL die unless they have a bunch of ships resupplying them and also processing stations elsewhere in tge solar system to make more ships. That is tge problem witu space colonies... no one world but Earth has all you need to make a proper man-rated spaceship. You literally need multiple world colonies and thrn ships to transport the precious ingredients to the processing stations that are also precious. Anything going wrong can kill tge colony or handicap it enough to mission kill it.

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

A nuclear exchange sends many countries back to the 19th century... but won't end all tech. People would rebuild. Want to know the great irony? An Earth nuked silly is still more habital than mars... and I reckon without Earth support a mars colony WILL die unless they have a bunch of ships resupplying them and also processing stations elsewhere in tge solar system to make more ships. That is tge problem witu space colonies... no one world but Earth has all you need to make a proper man-rated spaceship. You literally need multiple world colonies and thrn ships to transport the precious ingredients to the processing stations that are also precious. Anything going wrong can kill tge colony or handicap it enough to mission kill it.

More like 13th century or even early human history. With the food system collapsing and the numbers of farmers dropping each year, a massive famine would occur. Factories will be destroyed and with the survivors killing each other over food, no one will maintain whatever factories still survive- not that there will be any electricity to run them because electrical infrastructure are major nuclear targets. Guns will eventually be unserviceable, bullets will run out, and there will be no mines or miners to get the raw materials needed to make swords- and don't even get me started on the myriad of components needed for electronics. Without agriculture, humans would be forced to hunt animals, and if there are enough survivors this will probably lead to the extinction of a number of species and then another famine.

Observing all sorts of assessments- including natural disasters, pandemics, wars, and individual human nature- I can't help but think that any post-apocalyptic scenario outside of one similar to the ending of the British movie Threads, with mentally broken, silent survivors quietly tending to soil on farms only to have the harvest ruined by the clouded atmosphere, their children speaking broken English and having little to no social skills, humans reproducing "by force" only to bear deformed children who die minutes later, the survivors themselves dying of thyroid cancer and suffering from cataracts, is realistic. Anything else is the equivalent of the Walking Dead fantasies of the "preppers".

This is in the case of full scale nuclear exchange with Cold War arsenals and tactics. Limited nuclear war is obviously a different case, along with modern arsenals. Although the potential warhead count for individual nation's entire SSBN-SLBM force is still horrifying to me.

Edited October 1, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

More like 13th century or even early human history.

In the early XX they were working mostly by hands, having almost no chemistry, almost no electricity, no cars, etc. Just steam engines.

So, the XIX is the most possible bottom unless small tribes of wild savages survive.

And, unlike irl, they would have a lot of specialists, literature, samples, working devices, manufactured  resources.
So, they would just need to survive immediately and spend several decades hardly working to start manufacturing semiconductors and colored cartoons for TV sets.

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Factories will be destroyed and with the survivors killing each other over food

And with GI sent to get the food from various exotic places with elephants.

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Guns will eventually be unserviceable

A XIX gun is not a masterpiece.

Look at the best weapons of the Pedant Germany. Despite of its tech level, they look very... countrish. Because to be produced wherever.

Edited October 1, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Spacescifi]

I want to know more about Mini-mag orion... since Project Orion gets all the love and attention but mini-mag is virtually unknown except to space enthusiasts.

Questions:

1.0. Is mini-mag orion feasible RIGHT now or not?

1.5. if not what would it take for it to be feasible now?

2.  What would it allow or how would it change known flights to... the moon,  mars, etcetera?

3. I am aware mini-mag was designed because the original had a massive nozzle  radius because it involved using nukes and magnetic fields from nozzles (more massive than original project Orion). If I guessed correctly, mini-mag can be scaled up, it just cannot use nukes. Just fuel that can be magnetically pinched to  cause a fusion blast. Right?

4. Mini-mag is at best a second stage.

 

Could it be an SSTO on the moon?

My guess is it that the mini-mag is kinda low thrust? Or is it better than the much talked but  weaksauce nuclear thermal rocket? If it is better than nuclear thermal... great! Since maybe it could SSTO off low grav airless worlds, since aired ones would wreck the mini-mag in the blast.

 

So we are talking a mini-mag spaceship with detachable reusuable, refillable boosters as shuttles for aired worlds.

 

 

DidI understand this right? Please correct or clarify..... thank you all.

 

This is NOT for scifi necessarily, I am just comparing mini-mag against the much ballyhooed Project Orion.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Spacescifi

[magnemoe]

Min-mag orion is an primitive fusion drive.  
It has the benefit of being something we could build, yes it has an low technological readiness level but require no new technology. 

The obvious fail that its require power but this is something we can work around, because the fusion reaction you will get much more isp / watt here than from an pure eclectically powered engine like an ion engine. 
Main problem is that this is an heavy beast, think it is estimated to weigh 30-50 ton so its only relevant for an huge ship with an payloads of multiple hundred tons. 

[KSK]

Everything you wanted to know about Mini Mag Orion but were afraid to ask.

Realistic Designs H-M - Atomic Rockets (projectrho.com)

Some searching on that page will be required - I suggest looking for 'mini-mag'.

As far as I can tell, Mini Mag is a fission drive, not a fusion, although I may be wrong.  It's feasible now in much the same way that Orion is - it should work in theory but actually building it will require a lot of engineering, a lot of money, a damn good reason, and probably a more relaxed regulatory environment for testing. Note that Mini Mag was specifically designed to get around the big geopolitical problem with Orion, namely the fact that it's powered by a large stack of fission bombs. 

Mini Mag is relatively low thrust - according to the reference designs on Project Rho, a fully loaded Mini Mag ship has a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.1 (assuming my scribbled calculations are correct).  So, no good for lift-off from Earth, doubtful use as a second stage.

Could possibly be used as a lunar SSTO. The most useful reference design in that context was for a ship with a burnout (dry mass of ship plus payload) mass of about 250,000 kg.  Engine thrust is stated to be 642 kN, giving us a thrust to weight ratio (in lunar gravity) of about 1.5.  Given that the delta-V obtainable from a fully fueled vessel is 100 km/s, I think (although I haven't done the calculations to check) that a partially fueled Mini Mag, should be capable of landing on the Moon and taking off again, but a fully fueled one would be too heavy.

"So we are talking a mini-mag spaceship with detachable reusuable, refillable boosters as shuttles for aired worlds."

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you're talking about using detachable, reusable boosters to turn a Mini Mag ship into a shuttle, that doesn't seem plausible. Or rather, it might work but you'd need do use a SpaceX style mission profile with lots of tanker flights an on-orbit propellant transfer.

Bear in mind that the dry mass of that reference design is 150,000 kg or 150 tonnes. That's the bare metal ship with no propellant or payload.  That sounds plausible with a Superheavy class booster. The reference design wet mass though, is about 732 tonnes. Good luck getting that to orbit in one go.

Then there's the problem of getting the Mini Mag back down again (if you're planning to use it as a shuttle). It strikes me as being a complete nightmare to design a thermal protection system for, and also as being approximately as aerodynamic as a brick (and that's probably being unfair to bricks). Therefore, getting a Mini Mag back from orbit is probably going to rely heavily on propulsive descent. 

Which means you need to stick those detachable boosters back on and then refill them too. Possible in theory, but far from easy in practice.

[Spacescifi]

8 hours ago, KSK said:

Everything you wanted to know about Mini Mag Orion but were afraid to ask.

Realistic Designs H-M - Atomic Rockets (projectrho.com)

Some searching on that page will be required - I suggest looking for 'mini-mag'.

As far as I can tell, Mini Mag is a fission drive, not a fusion, although I may be wrong.  It's feasible now in much the same way that Orion is - it should work in theory but actually building it will require a lot of engineering, a lot of money, a damn good reason, and probably a more relaxed regulatory environment for testing. Note that Mini Mag was specifically designed to get around the big geopolitical problem with Orion, namely the fact that it's powered by a large stack of fission bombs. 

Mini Mag is relatively low thrust - according to the reference designs on Project Rho, a fully loaded Mini Mag ship has a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.1 (assuming my scribbled calculations are correct).  So, no good for lift-off from Earth, doubtful use as a second stage.

Could possibly be used as a lunar SSTO. The most useful reference design in that context was for a ship with a burnout (dry mass of ship plus payload) mass of about 250,000 kg.  Engine thrust is stated to be 642 kN, giving us a thrust to weight ratio (in lunar gravity) of about 1.5.  Given that the delta-V obtainable from a fully fueled vessel is 100 km/s, I think (although I haven't done the calculations to check) that a partially fueled Mini Mag, should be capable of landing on the Moon and taking off again, but a fully fueled one would be too heavy.

"So we are talking a mini-mag spaceship with detachable reusuable, refillable boosters as shuttles for aired worlds."

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you're talking about using detachable, reusable boosters to turn a Mini Mag ship into a shuttle, that doesn't seem plausible. Or rather, it might work but you'd need do use a SpaceX style mission profile with lots of tanker flights an on-orbit propellant transfer.

Bear in mind that the dry mass of that reference design is 150,000 kg or 150 tonnes. That's the bare metal ship with no propellant or payload.  That sounds plausible with a Superheavy class booster. The reference design wet mass though, is about 732 tonnes. Good luck getting that to orbit in one go.

Then there's the problem of getting the Mini Mag back down again (if you're planning to use it as a shuttle). It strikes me as being a complete nightmare to design a thermal protection system for, and also as being approximately as aerodynamic as a brick (and that's probably being unfair to bricks). Therefore, getting a Mini Mag back from orbit is probably going to rely heavily on propulsive descent. 

Which means you need to stick those detachable boosters back on and then refill them too. Possible in theory, but far from easy in practice.

Please... this is IRL,  I only care about SSTO for space opera.

 

I meant reusuable chemical boosters... attached to shuttles. basically you would have to do Spacex in reverse... land the booster and shuttle separately via tail landing... use ISRU to refuel both, then thrust the shuttle to sit above and attach to the booster and launch.

Hard but not impossible... you just don't get many do-overs with the tail landing shuttle landing atop the fueled booster.

So overall mini-mag is not so good except for low gravity situations, and by the time it is loaded with shuttles and reusuable boosters it's thrust will be lower still.

Now I see why project Orion gets all the love. Mini-mag is better for space probes... but anything manned wants as close to torchship as possible.

[ffx]

On 10/5/2021 at 3:43 AM, Spacescifi said:

Now I see why project Orion gets all the love. Mini-mag is better for space probes...

we havnt have any plans for a uranus/neptune/pluto orbiter. With the high ISP of mini mag, it could happend

also we can safe time to get there in the first place by just directly going there, without gravity assists

Edited October 6, 2021 by ffx

[wumpus]

On 10/3/2021 at 2:15 PM, Spacescifi said:

I want to know more about Mini-mag orion... since Project Orion gets all the love and attention but mini-mag is virtually unknown except to space enthusiasts.

Questions:

1.0. Is mini-mag orion feasible RIGHT now or not?

1.5. if not what would it take for it to be feasible now?

Reading KSK's link had "80MegaAmps" leaped out at me.  I'd assume that's the kicker, and I'd like to think that they don't really mean "80MA through one conductor", but the cumulative effect of multiple high-current wires creating a magnetic field.  I'd expect this to need some sort of improvement in superconductors, and it might be in the range of what a new startup from MIT (in the news the last month or so) is trying to do now for fusion.

Orion's issues are entirely political.  And of course that you'd have to build it either in space or on Antarctica, making the construction of such a beast a double challenge.  And don't forget that while battleship construction workers were available when Freeman Dyson was proposing it, there aren't any left any more so there would be a big learning curve on construction (would submarine construction be similar?  I doubt they know now).  And while the design would certainly be challenging, it would be more like the design of Starship or New Glenn in that it would be a huge project, but not require any new technical breakthroughs.  Just remember to design for manufacture and budget most of your R&D for figuring how to put the thing together (something Musk emphasizes now that he was bit hard by Tesla 3, but is particularly obvious when the design simply requires *more* mass rather than less).

[Spacescifi]

Well.... I would sure like to hear the speech he would give to try to 'sell' this to the American public!

 

"I believe this nation should commit itself, before this century is out, to land a man on Mars and return him safely to the Earth.... we choose to go to Mars and do the other thing,  not because they are easy but because they are hard!"

 

Something IRL would be different given the change of scenery sunlit zenova mentioned... but hopefully will stilll include the epic phrase 'we do this not because it is easy but BECAUSE it is hard!'

Still epic decades later, music was made based off it:

 

 

 

[kops said]

On 9/30/2021 at 11:53 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

. The rodents develop inter-universal travel and proceed to subjugate the near infinite series of worlds under their rule.

You mean... Sandy Cheeks？

[Spacescifi]

 

Fuel/air bombs are said to exceed even some kinds of fission and nuclear bombs (likely not the maxed out ones).

That said, in theory, spacecraft could be launched and use fuel/air bombs where air is still thick enough to help the explosion of the bombs.

 

Where air thins out... perhas there are non-nuke shaped charge bombs that could still propel it at better than normal chemicsal rocket efficiencies?

 

 

Granted it won't lift as much as the original Project Orion, but perhaps it could compete with chemical rockets at least?

 

What do you think?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Weight and volume compared to oomph. 

Math just doan werk out

If you think about it - traditional rocket is a fuel air bomb just with a controlled burn.  

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Gargamel]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

If you think about it - traditional rocket is a fuel air bomb just with a controlled burn.  

Yup, non nuclear Orion would just be a traditional rocket with really bad nozzle design. 
 

 

[Spacescifi]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Weight and volume compared to oomph. 

Math just doan werk out

If you think about it - traditional rocket is a fuel air bomb just with a controlled burn.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Yup, non nuclear Orion would just be a traditional rocket with really bad nozzle design. 
 

 

 

So in plainly you are saying that thermobaric bombs have a TWR on par with chemical rockets? Which means rockets SHOULD outperform them due to actually having nozzles?

But... I was thinking what if the thermobaric bomb was one nuke level blast? Surely there are thermobaric bombs that generate more energy per second than the chem rockets and weigh less than the combined weight of all that propellant and tankage, and turbopumps/pipes?

Maybe the pusher plate can be lighter since it no longer has to confront nukes?

If so...

I was thinking just blast a bunch of those and you could scream through the air plasma along a curve and just coast into orbit.... maybe with more bomb fuel left than if you used chemicals?

Yeah the nose would ablate some, but that should not be a showstopper. Just use tungsten tip or something else heat resistant.

 

This idea is basically like an air augmented rocket on steroids... since it is getting a good deal of it's power from the air blast anyway.

 

Only difference is exploding bombs and pusher plates.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

44 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I was thinking what if the thermobaric bomb was one nuke level blast?

A baby nuke. An embryonuke.

46 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Maybe the pusher plate can be lighter since it no longer has to confront nukes?

I was thinking just blast a bunch of those

As it was told not once, the Orion design is based on the directed hit of a plasma jet, not on just a blast.

The fuel-air bombs are to uniformly raise the pressure inside the dedicated volume. Their mechanical abilitiy is secondary and poor, they are to squish the soft.

Also, all needed air should be taken to space, as it lacks it.

[mikegarrison]

Nuclear bonds are simply vastly more energy-dense than chemical bonds. Project Orion was not proposed because exploding bombs behind your ship is a great way to provide thrust. It was proposed because nuclear power is necessary to get anywhere beyond maybe Mars or Venus. A "non-nuclear Orion" misses the ENTIRE point.

Besides, fuel/air bombs work because the bomb only supplies the fuel. The oxygen is already there. That is not the situation in space.

[kerbiloid]

They were proposed as a antisat (make an air-fuel cloud from can and squash the sat), but just to compensate the low accuracy.

The "vacuum bomb" isn't good in vacuum.

[Gargamel]

How big was the Lebanon explosion again?  2kt?   Something like that.    And that was an entire dockside warehouse.    Getting non nuclear munitions up to the scale of nuclear explosions requires including the logistics of bulk freighters.