Most ridiculous government funded space ideas.

[crazyewok]

There's two problems with it. The first is is that it's main propulsion system was vaporware - it depended on 'clean' high yield fusion devices, which never materialized. The second is that precisely none of it's hardware was ever tested beyond the crudest laboratory proof-of-concept level. There are no *obvious* showstoppers in the engineering, but there's no evidence it could actually be built with 1950's technology either. They simply never got far enough along to find out.

I think your thinking of project daedalus, it was a offshot of orion that involvled orion research.

Orion relied on fission bombs that were if memory serves 95%+ efficiant. Apprently they did materlise and why the project is highly classfied to this day i dont even think you can find out how high over 95% they got.

And it did go as far as field testing as they were using the military nuclear testing to do structal integrity tests and even made a scaled down non nuclear model all of which came back with glowing results. It was the brillent results why so much is still classfied as cheap, clean and small nukes are not a thing you want say north korea to get its gruby mitts on.

Face it mankind missed its chance to be out amougnst the solar system today.

Edited December 22, 2013 by crazyewok

[rdfox]

yes, and the highest fusion ratio US test was a technical failure. It had a yield far higher than predicted. While pleased, it was a failure in that it did not confirm the expectations of what it should have done...

Not so much a failure as a learning experience. It was our *third* thermonuclear fusion test ever. We really didn't know what to expect of Lithium-7's effect in the fusion fuel; we thought it'd be inert. We learned that it instead gives up bonus neutrons that boost the fusion process vastly, making bigger yield possible with cheaper fuel.

[crazyewok]

Also if the rumours are correct orion is still very much on the table with designs ready incase we pick up a rogue metor or comet heading our way.

[Kerbart]

For one thing, it would need hundreds, if not over a thousand nukes. For another thing, unless you want to vaporize part of your country, you can't launch it into space with the nukes, and lastly they wanted to use the nuclear bombs to safely land men on Mars.

See, it's this narrowmindedness that keeps us at Earth. Why launch it from your own country? There are plenty of countries that need freedom & a space program; today as well in the 1950s.

[crazyewok]

Actually the plan was to launch from a platform in the pacific oceon or the nevada desert with a huge metal plate underneath that way the explosion or the fallout would be a non issue, plus the nukes were to be small 15-200kt bombs, so you just need at most a 50 square mile exclusion zone and theres plenty of them in nevada alone.

[Themohawkninja]

You havent read much on it have you?

You do realise they came up with some pretty good and sound ideas to eliminate the saftey problems? Even the fallout by end they reduced to near nothing hense why most the material still classified asthere research could be used to make small and clean nukes.

Dont take the ignorant OMGZ s nukes!1!!1 stance, actually do some research and it was a pretty sound and safe idea. No more crazy than strap yourself to 100+ of unstabe and explosive chemicals and hopeing for the best.

I watched a whole hour long documentary on it, and read the Wikipedia page, so I think I've done my research. Neither of those, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned any attempt to remedy any safety problems.

[Nibb31]

Actually the plan was to launch from a platform in the pacific oceon or the nevada desert with a huge metal plate underneath that way the explosion or the fallout would be a non issue, plus the nukes were to be small 15-200kt bombs, so you just need at most a 50 square mile exclusion zone and theres plenty of them in nevada alone.

A 50 mile exclusion zone isn't a safety measure. You still need to have hundreds of people working in that area with all the infrastructure to build and fix and prepare your spaceship. After a few explosions, your whole spaceship is completely irradiated, unless it is actually vaporized or damaged by the explosion.

Oh, and nuclear bombs as a propellant aren't particularly affordable or easy to handle.

There were very good reasons that the idea was abandoned. It was another one of those stupid nuclear ideas from the 50's that were given up as soon as they found out how impractical they were.

[crazyewok]

A 50 mile exclusion zone isn't a safety measure. You still need to have hundreds of people working in that area with all the infrastructure to build and fix and prepare your spaceship.

You dont know much about the project do you?

After a few explosions, your whole spaceship is completely irradiated, unless it is actually vaporized or damaged by the explosion.

WRONG AGAIN! I suggest you actuallu do some research. Read up on the pusher plates. Structal integrity tests were even done and came back glowing. Plus radiation? again that was overcome with a mixture of dirceted explosions and radiation sheilding (rember weights not a issue).

Oh, and nuclear bombs as a propellant aren't particularly affordable or easy to handle.

WRONG! The researchers actually found away to mass produce small bombs which were highly efficant. Coca cola were even contracted to build a delivery system. This is why alot of the research is still highly classified. Nuclear are not that expensive if you have proper uranium refining infrastructure, hence why uranium refining is extremly restrictive to make it expensive on purpose to stop rogue states gaining nukes or at least slowing the process down.

There were very good reasons that the idea was abandoned. It was another one of those stupid nuclear ideas from the 50's that were given up as soon as they found out how impractical they were.

Another WRONG statement, you really do need to do your research. No its was cancelled beacuse of a little something called the NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY. Politics stoped the project not the science.

[crazyewok]

I watched a whole hour long documentary on it, and read the Wikipedia page, so I think I've done my research. Neither of those, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned any attempt to remedy any safety problems.

wow you ready the wiki page

No there was some work done to minimise the fallout issue. The main one being to launch it in a desert or at sea with a huge metal pad underneath that would have reduced the fallout to minimal level even useing old dirty nukes. But if you used the cleaner nukes that were researched dureing project plowshear it would be neglible. Also it was hinted at in the documentry (if its the one I watched) but when it was made there was some issue over what was still classified or not hense why they only skirted the issue of safety inprovemnets. Infact a lot still is classfied.

But hey you keep playing with your toy chemical rockets and pretend they will actuall get you somewere

[Nibb31]

WRONG! The researchers actually found away to mass produce small bombs which were highly efficant. Coca cola were even contracted to build a delivery system. This is why alot of the research is still highly classified.

Just screaming "WRONG!" does nothing to improve your credibility. Now it's time to provide some proper links to credible sources or to shut up... How you can even claim to know details about the delivery system and glowing pusher plates, and say that it is highly classified in the same paragraph, shows a complete lack of logic.

Why on Earth would NASA or DoD ask Coca Cola to design a delivery system for a space propulsion system? If you read that statement somewhere on the Internet and thought it was true, then you are way too gullible.

[crazyewok]

Most of my sources come from books. So cant post them. But heres a link thate mention sth coca cola fact http://astroguyz.com/2011/06/02/declassified-the-true-tale-of-project-orion/. They were contacted as they wanted a delivery system to deploy the nukes in a reliable and regular fashion and they looked into the massive manfuactreing convay belt system they have in the coke factorys. That is a fact.

As for mention classified stuff? No the stuff I mentioned is not classified in itself just the details of what they were are. Plus when the documentry was made thay most have watched those facts were basicaly fully classified and only really got released a few years back and even then as I said only the gennral idea, the details remain undre lock and key.

[Nibb31]

Ok, so your main source is a blog post and a comment underneath it.

I rest my case.

[mdatspace]

NTR is probably better when it comes to nuclear propulsion.

I wouldn't call chemical rockets "toys". While they are inefficient, they are tried and tested. And when I mean tried and tested, I mean they are used on practically every rocket in history.

[Charzy]

Consider that a vending machine that dispenses nuclear warheads isn't very much different to one that dispenses cans of coke.

Many companies make things with far more interesting uses than you'd expect. The astronauts on Apollo 8 used silly putty to keep their tools in place.

[Nibb31]

Yeah, but a vending machine isn't exactly rocket science. A vending machine is so much different from a propulsion device that has to work in zero-g under huge loads and with 100% reliability. When you have engineers that can design an Apollo or a Space Shuttle, you don't need to seriously ask Coca Cola for basic mechanical engineering.

But again, this was the 1950's... a period when they tested LSD on military personnel to turn them into super-soldiers or ordered them to walk across battlefields that were still glowing from a nuclear test. They had so many crazy ideas that are laughable or cringe-worthy nowadays. Orion is just one of them.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Kryten]

Consider that a vending machine that dispenses nuclear warheads isn't very much different to one that dispenses cans of coke.

The Cola-Cola company makes syrups for making drinks. That's all they do. They don't do their own bottling, never mind make vending machines.

[crazyewok]

Ok, so your main source is a blog post and a comment underneath it.

I rest my case.

No my main source is a friggen book! but I cant copy and past pages cause that would be a breach of copy right. Anyway if you look it was brought out in a documentry, dunno what one as I have seen a couple but its there if you look. And its not that insane, they needed a reliable way of introduceing bomblets at regular interveals on a conveyer belt type system, I mean who else whould you contact for such a thing? You want a conveyer belt system your going to go to the experts right?

[crazyewok]

Consider that a vending machine that dispenses nuclear warheads isn't very much different to one that dispenses cans of coke.

Many companies make things with far more interesting uses than you'd expect. The astronauts on Apollo 8 used silly putty to keep their tools in place.

EXACTLY!

They just went to known technology at the time with a idea to see if it could be adapted to what they needed.

[crazyewok]

When you have engineers that can design an Apollo or a Space Shuttle, you don't need to seriously ask Coca Cola for basic mechanical engineering.

You dont know alot about engineering do you?

Just cause your engineer know how to make a rocket doesnt mean they can design a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% effcetive system that can drop bomblets at regular intervals. Diffrent specalists for diffrent things. And yes NASA would have specalists in rockets but on that particular system? Maybe not and rather than waste millions trying to copy why not take a few experts from else where on contracts to fullfilll a specalist job? Happens all the time.

They had so many crazy ideas that are laughable or cringe-worthy nowadays. Orion is just one of them.

How?

The maths worked out?

The intial tests worked out?

The only thing that stoped the project was the nuclear test ban treaty. Only politics stoped it. Thats what cancelled it politics. Maybe it would have failed? you cant tell as it was never the science that stoped it only politics. So unless you have a pHD in Nuclear physics and can give me a point to pint reason on why it would be a complete and utter faliure then you cant say it would be.

Edited December 22, 2013 by crazyewok

[rkman]

the "100 year starship"

http://100yss.org/

[Kryten]

No my main source is a friggen book! but I cant copy and past pages cause that would be a breach of copy right.

Does 'copy right' also prevent you from even giving the name of the book?

[Tiberion]

Does 'copy right' also prevent you from even giving the name of the book?

Fairly sure he means Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship By George Dyson - it has a chapter named Coca Cola in it and its about the charge dispenser, though the previewed parts on Google Books don't specifically mention Coke doing work.

I don't really doubt it though, back then engineering was much more pragmatic a lot of systems were designed by experts in a given field rather than being started from scratch by new teams.

Really doesn't matter how well the tests worked or how much the engineering could have worked - you're still cramming tons of nuclear material into a skyscraper and launching it into orbit. Lets say it makes it halfway to orbit and then fails, and begins raining 100kt charges over Europe or Africa. Do you just say, "Oops, my bad?"

It's a fascinating design from the era of "Nuclear power can do everything" but in the grand scheme of things, its still pretty crazy and not something anyone should wish for.

[Moar Boosters]

Does 'copy right' also prevent you from even giving the name of the book?

Notice how this book has a chapter called coca cola.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/project-orion-george-b-dyson/1113322201?ean=9780805059854

Fairly sure he means Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship By George Dyson - it has a chapter named Coca Cola in it and its about the charge dispenser, though the previewed parts on Google Books don't specifically mention Coke doing work.

I don't really doubt it though, back then engineering was much more pragmatic a lot of systems were designed by experts in a given field rather than being started from scratch by new teams.

Really doesn't matter how well the tests worked or how much the engineering could have worked - you're still cramming tons of nuclear material into a skyscraper and launching it into orbit. Lets say it makes it halfway to orbit and then fails, and begins raining 100kt charges over Europe or Africa. Do you just say, "Oops, my bad?"

It's a fascinating design from the era of "Nuclear power can do everything" but in the grand scheme of things, its still pretty crazy and not something anyone should wish for.

America and the USSR spend a few decades cramming planes full of nuclear material and then flying around each others borders......... that was even crazier and not something anyone should wish for.

I imagine a fully loaded ship would be pretty dodgy, but theoretically if something were to be put into orbit, it could have it's fuel carried up later in smaller, less disaster-prone packages.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Moar Boosters

[Skyler4856]

That wasn't an article nor government funded; it was a Jules Verne book...

XD I have read that...

Im talking about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicklaunch

I can't stop laughing

[Tiberion]

America and the USSR spend a few decades cramming planes full of nuclear material and then flying around each others borders......... that was even crazier and not something anyone should wish for.

I imagine a fully loaded ship would be pretty dodgy, but theoretically if something were to be put into orbit, it could have it's fuel carried up later in smaller, less disaster-prone packages.

Totally agree, nuclear arsenals are scary any way you look at it. A necessary evil I suppose at the time, and we thankfully tip-toed through the worse of the Mutually-Assured Destruction era without ending humanity. I think nuclear weapons are pretty firmly a deterrence measure now, no regime with any sense would really want to use them. If we were a little surer that some of the dictator and terrorist regimes out there had enough sense, we could sleep better at night. For now, lets hope the IAEA is up to the task of curbing nuclear weapon development, eh?

By the way, This section of the non-rocket wiki article references the aforementioned book by George Dyson as saying that an Orion launch within the Earth's Magnetosphere would kill between 1 and 10 people per launch.

if anyone has access to the whole book, I would be interested in learning the details behind that statistic. I assume its related to discoveries made during Castle Bravo test, where the accidental high yield irradiated a much higher area than expected, and Tsar Bomba, which affected a lot of Europe.