Orion Drive space battleship

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Yes. that's why the source I read said "by a factor of ten."

If it was a pure fusion device, the fallout would be reduced to zero.

 

So, best case scenario, sending one of these to orbit would be the equivalent of setting off 30 "standard" atmospheric tests.

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

And once it's in orbit, or better yet, Once it lands somewhere where the Kaboom factor doesn't upset the hippies (like the moon), then it's a non issue what you propel it with. It's getting off the big blue Marble that's the real problem. Frankly, at it's Worse, the arguments against it are in the same category as those folks that were screaming at Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the earth. We could have done this, in the 50's, with 50's tech. Now, we supposedly have Better, so let's do it.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

And once it's in orbit' date=' or better yet, Once it lands somewhere where the Kaboom factor doesn't upset the hippies (like the moon), then it's a non issue what you propel it with. It's getting off the big blue Marble that's the real problem. Frankly, at it's Worse, the arguments against it are in the same category as those folks that were screaming at Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the earth. We could have done this, in the 50's, with 50's tech. Now, we supposedly have Better, so let's do it.[/quote']

 

So concern about setting off 1000 nukes in the atmosphere to launch one of these things is like being concerned that sailing too far will result in falling off?

 

And yet it's "the hippies" who are irrational?

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Completely, because you're in more danger of radioactive issues from frequent flyer miles and over done full body imaging then what you would be from a couple of launches of some big Orions to start building a big Orion Launchpad on the moon. Seriously, no matter what's said FOR the project, all the Anti Orion people ever see, are the words, Fallout, Nuclear, Explosion, and Radioactive Mutant. Things go off all the time on this planet that spew far more gunk and cause far more fallout but because we make this one, it's bad? Seriously. Let's build it and find out. First Radioactive Mutant that shows up, I'll admit to being over zealous about the idea.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Completely' date=' because you're in more danger of radioactive issues from frequent flyer miles and over done full body imaging then what you would be from a couple of launches of some big Orions to start building a big Orion Launchpad on the moon. Seriously, no matter what's said FOR the project, all the Anti Orion people ever see, are the words, Fallout, Nuclear, Explosion, and Radioactive Mutant. Things go off all the time on this planet that spew far more gunk and cause far more fallout but because we make this one, it's bad? Seriously. Let's build it and find out. First Radioactive Mutant that shows up, I'll admit to being over zealous about the idea.[/quote']

 

Wait, so because the idea of radioactive mutants is silly, being concerned about the results of 1000 rapid-fire atmospheric detonations is silly? You're using hyperboly and strawman arguments to blow off any thought of legitimate concern.

 

Do you think that atmospheric nuclear testing was halted for no reason? The US CDC, the people who study deaths and disease for a living, estimate that about 11000 deaths were caused by atmospheric testing, most from thyroid cancer.

 

From 1945 to 1980, just over 500 atmospheric detonations were conducted. A single Orion launch would be twice that many in a matter of minutes.

[Nyrath]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

So' date=' best case scenario, sending one of these to orbit would be the equivalent of setting off 30 "standard" atmospheric tests.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure, I'll have to check my references.

Of course with your figures it will be 3 standard atmospheric tests if it launches from the North Magnetic Pole.

[Cancer]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Yes. that's why the source I read said "by a factor of ten."

If it was a pure fusion device, the fallout would be reduced to zero.

 

Provided you avoided the use of neutron-rich species. Granted, even with deuterium-tritium fusion, without the fission trigger it's a lot "cleaner", but as long as you have N > Z you will get some "activated" nuclei left behind because of the neutron excess.

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Wait, so because the idea of radioactive mutants is silly, being concerned about the results of 1000 rapid-fire atmospheric detonations is silly? You're using hyperboly and strawman arguments to blow off any thought of legitimate concern.

 

Do you think that atmospheric nuclear testing was halted for no reason? The US CDC, the people who study deaths and disease for a living, estimate that about 11000 deaths were caused by atmospheric testing, most from thyroid cancer.

 

From 1945 to 1980, just over 500 atmospheric detonations were conducted. A single Orion launch would be twice that many in a matter of minutes.

 

11,000 Deaths, that they THINK, was cause be that. How many people were killed in CAR CRASHES during that period? How many people were wiped out in Hurricanes or other Natural Disasters in that period? Sure, you had some folks come down with Cancer that were exposed to insane radiation etc during testing, and the guy next to him, came down with nothing, and meanwhile, you had Just as many people die from Cancers the got from Exposure to the SUN, but I don't here the plaintive Wail of "Hyperbole!" and "Strawman Argument!" and "We need to Put out the Sun" coming from the VW microbus crowd.....

 

The fears, are Unfounded, the risks, Especially with the better science, and in comparison to the whole, are Less then that of walking across the street to go buy a cup of coffee. Huddle in the cave I'm going out to play with the Obelisk.

 

~Rex

 

~Rex

[Cancer]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Looks like we should launch it from southeastern Wisconsin, then.

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Fire it up, though it's not the best location for a launch window. I'm not subject to the irrational fear of nuclear anything.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

11' date='000 Deaths, that they THINK, was cause be that. How many people were killed in CAR CRASHES during that period? How many people were wiped out in Hurricanes or other Natural Disasters in that period? Sure, you had some folks come down with Cancer that were exposed to insane radiation etc during testing, and the guy next to him, came down with [b']nothing[/b], and meanwhile, you had Just as many people die from Cancers the got from Exposure to the SUN, but I don't here the plaintive Wail of "Hyperbole!" and "Strawman Argument!" and "We need to Put out the Sun" coming from the VW microbus crowd.....

 

The fears, are Unfounded, the risks, Especially with the better science, and in comparison to the whole, are Less then that of walking across the street to go buy a cup of coffee. Huddle in the cave I'm going out to play with the Obelisk.

 

So you say "Well gee I heard that some guy got cancer and some other guy didn't." and the CDC says 11000 deaths from atmospheric testing alone. Which you then blow off as "they THINK" and by comparing it to accidental automobile deaths.

 

I think I'll go with the CDC's findings over your snide caricatures about "the VW microbus crowd". You're ranting about "THE STRAWMAN" in response to my comment, while continuing to engage in that fallacy, along with ad hominem and absurd exagerations about the other side's opinions.

 

All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole, and casting doubt on your own position.

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Of course a fast breeder reactor can convert the abundant non-fissile U-238 into fissile plutonium-239.

The only reason there is a lack of plutonium is due to non-proliferation issues.

 

The voluntary US mortorium on fast breeders, reprocessing spent fuel rods, etc, is an accurate example of a restriction on nuclear techology that's fueled by FUD and irrationality.

 

I'll also add that given the far tighter regulations and limits on nuclear power plants, there's more radioactive crap added to the atmosphere each year by coal-fired power plants, or so I've read. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

[Cancer]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Not really. Since the push charges are relatively small, the range of dangerous EMP is about 170 miles in radius. You just have to have the launch site in a remote spot. Which you'd want to have for other reasons anyway.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03a.html

 

What I don't have a handle on is the damage/hazard to things in the Earth-orbit region rather than Earth surface. As you pointed out in the thread about weapon tests and Apollo, any blast in space leaves an enhanced radiation environment behind that lasts years. The magnetic field confinement of the extra particles is (very crudely) by altitude in the near-equatorial regions of space, which is where the Big Money is in terms of satellite commerce. I expect that accelerating through region will cost you in terms of operating satellites, be those civilian or military. You may not knock any out immediately (and I genuinely don't know what damage this thing would do, and I have only the barest ideas on how to go about estimating it), but you would definitely reduce the lifetime of everything in orbit ... and that's a real-dollars cost that won't be popular.

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

So you say "Well gee I heard that some guy got cancer and some other guy didn't." and the CDC says 11000 deaths from atmospheric testing alone. Which you then blow off as "they THINK" and by comparing it to accidental automobile deaths.

 

I think I'll go with the CDC's findings over your snide caricatures about "the VW microbus crowd". You're ranting about "THE STRAWMAN" in response to my comment, while continuing to engage in that fallacy, along with ad hominem and absurd exagerations about the other side's opinions.

 

All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole, and casting doubt on your own position.

 

You can side with the CDC report if you want. I'll side with the other side of the equation that has demonstrated time and time again, that the risk is negligible at best. Want to know why I blew it off as they Think? Because they don't KNOW for sure (From the report itself we have: The CDC-NCI study claims that the fallout might have led to approximately 11,000 excess deaths, most caused by thyroid cancer linked to exposure to iodine-131.) Key Words. Might Have. One would think a study going from 1945 to 1980 would have more pages, but might have, possible, probable, and possibility are the words that crop up the most for it.

 

There's very GOOD reasons, for not going forward. I just happen to side with the very good reasons FOR moving forward. There's folks that for great reasons seek to constrain advancement, but I choose to side with the guys whose line of thinking, got out out of the caves and made sure we don't have to hunt things with sticks and rocks anymore.

 

66 Years. That's roughly the time it took us to go from wood and canvas, to the Moon. In the 38 Years since then, we've barely, done Anything, in effect, we've gone backwards, and I want to go forward so sue me.

 

Now if you want to make a point I'm more then happy to go back and forth over it. Just Don't paraphrase me by re-writing something I said (underlined above) in a personally derogatory manner (I speak in more of a Sling Blade style and manner and the above is clearly meant to look like something Lennie from "Of Mice and Men" would say), then get up on the high horse and call ME snide. Sure I'm anti Hippy, but I keep it generalist. Not personal. It's only snide, when you point fingers, and take other folks stuff out of context, and portray it, to a negative intent.

 

There is far more Radioactive junk spewed forth by Coal Plants, then any Nuclear Plant (other then the ones that broke). That's not counting, Volcanoes, and the Sun. If we were allowed to actually Build NEW plants, instead of being forced to run with OLD designs 50 Years out of date (A topic for another thread), we wouldn't have 90% of the issues we have now.

 

Things in Orbit are already exposed to Insane levels of Radiation, just from being up there. The Sun, spews it out all the time, and when it flares, it spews out LOTS more. A few Orions going up, to get to a place where the scared folks can't really come up with some vague reason, to build bigger and better things, aren't going to significantly impact anything on the surface of the big blue marble. It's not like they would launch out of Downtown L.A.

 

You naysayers can paraphrase and re-write all you want, but it's Going to happen. It's just that when it does, the Flag on the side of Orion, is probably gonna be Chinese or Indian. And they don't give a crap really, about following other folks namby pamby rules or what you happen to think. When you're out of Space to breath, you either Go find more Space, or you take it from someone else. I'd much rather it be us pulling the strings and with the initial claims to things, then them. At least WE'LL, bring the Hippies, Micro bus and all with us, because we take bullets, to defend their rights to belittle and bemoan folks they don't agree with. The Chinese, they just run 'em over with a Tank.

 

So, gimme an Orion, and a Star to guide her by, because that's just the first Step, to Project Daedalus, Longshot, or even Medusa (though that one seems a bit wonky even to me) and the even better Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion, Bussard Ramjets and more. We've done the Crawl. Now let's Walk, so we can get to the Run. Besides. "I've got an Orbital Nuclear Battleship and the Will to Use it!" will beat out any "Can't we all Share?" argument any day of the week. Like Marcus in B5 (and was noted previously): It’s as I have always said, “you can get more from a kind word and a 2x4 than you can from just a kind word”.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

You can side with the CDC report if you want. I'll side with the other side of the equation that has demonstrated time and time again' date=' that the risk is negligible at best. Want to know why I blew it off as they Think? Because they don't KNOW for sure (From the report itself we have: The CDC-NCI study claims that the fallout[b'] might have[/b] led to approximately 11,000 excess deaths, most caused by thyroid cancer linked to exposure to iodine-131.) Key Words. Might Have. One would think a study going from 1945 to 1980 would have more pages, but might have, possible, probable, and possibility are the words that crop up the most for it.

 

There's very GOOD reasons, for not going forward. I just happen to side with the very good reasons FOR moving forward. There's folks that for great reasons seek to constrain advancement, but I choose to side with the guys whose line of thinking, got out out of the caves and made sure we don't have to hunt things with sticks and rocks anymore.

 

66 Years. That's roughly the time it took us to go from wood and canvas, to the Moon. In the 38 Years since then, we've barely, done Anything, in effect, we've gone backwards, and I want to go forward so sue me.

 

Now if you want to make a point I'm more then happy to go back and forth over it. Just Don't paraphrase me by re-writing something I said (underlined above) in a personally derogatory manner (I speak in more of a Sling Blade style and manner and the above is clearly meant to look like something Lennie from "Of Mice and Men" would say), then get up on the high horse and call ME snide. Sure I'm anti Hippy, but I keep it generalist. Not personal. It's only snide, when you point fingers, and take other folks stuff out of context, and portray it, to a negative intent.

 

There is far more Radioactive junk spewed forth by Coal Plants, then any Nuclear Plant (other then the ones that broke). That's not counting, Volcanoes, and the Sun. If we were allowed to actually Build NEW plants, instead of being forced to run with OLD designs 50 Years out of date (A topic for another thread), we wouldn't have 90% of the issues we have now.

 

Things in Orbit are already exposed to Insane levels of Radiation, just from being up there. The Sun, spews it out all the time, and when it flares, it spews out LOTS more. A few Orions going up, to get to a place where the scared folks can't really come up with some vague reason, to build bigger and better things, aren't going to significantly impact anything on the surface of the big blue marble. It's not like they would launch out of Downtown L.A.

 

You naysayers can paraphrase and re-write all you want, but it's Going to happen. It's just that when it does, the Flag on the side of Orion, is probably gonna be Chinese or Indian. And they don't give a crap really, about following other folks namby pamby rules or what you happen to think. When you're out of Space to breath, you either Go find more Space, or you take it from someone else. I'd much rather it be us pulling the strings and with the initial claims to things, then them. At least WE'LL, bring the Hippies, Micro bus and all with us, because we take bullets, to defend their rights to belittle and bemoan folks they don't agree with. The Chinese, they just run 'em over with a Tank.

 

So, gimme an Orion, and a Star to guide her by, because that's just the first Step, to Project Daedalus, Longshot, or even Medusa (though that one seems a bit wonky even to me) and the even better Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion, Bussard Ramjets and more. We've done the Crawl. Now let's Walk, so we can get to the Run. Besides. "I've got an Orbital Nuclear Battleship and the Will to Use it!" will beat out any "Can't we all Share?" argument any day of the week. Like Marcus in B5 (and was noted previously): It’s as I have always said, “you can get more from a kind word and a 2x4 than you can from just a kind word”.

 

I've already made my point. You keep ignoring it and blowing off the facts and saying "What? there's no problem, that's all just crazy talk!" Not being a mind-reader, I won't speculate (out loud) as to why you do.

 

And you'll please note that I'm not some "hippy", scared of all things with the words "nuclear" or "radiation" attached to them -- thus my comments regarding coal-fired power plants, the purely political opposition to breeder reactors and reprocessing, and so on. It's possible to be rational, pro-nuclear-power, and so on, and still wonder aloud at the utterly blase disregard for the dangers that's being expressed by proponents of projects like Orion.

 

One has to wonder why there's such utter contempt being expressed towards anyone who isn't on board for the big show, and why it is that anyone who stops to question is being broad-brushed as a "hippy".

[RexMundi]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Utter contempt? heh. Look Kristopher I'm not utterly contemptible about anything really (except maybe d20, and sherbert). Pot calling Kettle Black here, as I have made several points as well, which are handwaved away as being the ravings of a Lunatic, yet I can use pretty much the same links you provide, to back my case as well. I've also, never called you a Hippy, or in fact, Never pointed a Finger at Any Poster, and said "YOU ARE A HIPPY!" Your Point, seems to be basically to get in the last word, and take a cheap shot at someone who doesn't agree with your opinion. I could be wrong in that, but that's how I learn things. Originally, I had felt that you were simply on the opposite side of the debate but you stooped to taking a personal shot at me ( I would have been fine with generalist commentary and crazy folks yelling at people to get off their lawn, that's generalist, not personal). Personal shots, aren't cool.

 

Even in the above rebuttal, it's all personal attack. One has to wonder why such utter contempt is being expressed towards someone who is on the board for the big show.

 

So, let me see if I can" Link up Pretty likes", to factual observations not from myself (Since, if I don't link to wikipedia every other sentence, I'm supposedly of sub human intellect). I'll keep to Wikipedia since it seems to be the Ark of the Covenant here for rebuttal.

 

Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Now. Freeman Dyson, is apparently not a dumb man, having to take time off from advanced Studies to work on this stuff initially (From Princeton no less). Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines now being studied. Cheap interplanetary travel was the goal of the Orion Project.

 

So let's break it down a bit, so I can see where the negativity comes from.

 

1. Can we do it. Yes, we could have done it back in the 50's and 60's (leaning towards the 60's myself. "Our motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'"~ Freeman Dyson

 

2. Is it Cheap? Hell Yeah. Gets rid of those pesky Nuclear Arsenals to. Shuttles about, $6,000 per payload pound. A big Orion would be roughly $250.00 per Payload Pound, Per Launch. Fuels cheaper to. Roughly 175 Million per Launch. Shuttle burns up more money in gas.

 

3. Are there "Bad Things" that can happen to you? Of course, but then there is just as big a risk, with the conventional rockets as well. The folks in charge of the program, even after the disillusionment created by the fallout from the ground launch issues (no pun intended) showed that even with their most extensive launch schedule, the would have added less then 1% to the levels already being produced by the Super Powers testing in the 60's. Those bad things could have been completely obliterated, by the simple facts that they had also worked out a set up, to build the things and launch them from Orbit (would have needed two Heavy Lift (Saturn V or equal) launches to get it up there.

 

4. Is there information on it other then Wikipedia? Yep. This shows the Good (which I like), AND the bad (Which I agree with by the way, I just consider it acceptable risk, like gasoline), in short, a very good, and heavily referenced for back tracking article: http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

 

5. Why not? There seems to be piles and piles of science and Data saying it's good, and one report, not even related to it, saying it would be the end of all life on earth (slightly exaggerated)? That report is here btw : http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/Fallout/index.html or you can start here: http://www.ieer.org/comments/fallout/factsht.html and follow the links around to other studies and tests. Considering, if Orion were to start again, you wouldn't be launching from the middle of a sandbox in nevada, it comparing Oranges, to bananas. The only thing in common is that they are both considered fruits.

 

6. We're Running Out of Room. Dysons quote above is a good thing to think. It's supported by Other Smart people, with all sorts of degrees and such hanging on their walls, as you can see by following the links.

 

So in short. We can do it. It's Cheap. It Works. It will be Faster. It will be Easier. Everything we need to do it is Off the Shelf. The Drawbacks are Negligible, and no where near as bad as what the initial 50's and 60's write ups had it as, which were negligible back then. It's the first step to even Cleaner and better versions (Daedalus for example, and beyond). Somebodies gonna do it and when they do, they ain't gonna share with Us.

 

So, aside from the fact I don't like Hippies, Nuclear Protesters, Sherbert, d20, and Chihuahua's (Can't stand the ratty little things), and I REALLY like the idea, and the Model, the possibilities, and have really since Jerry Pournelles "A Step Farther Out" (I like the idea of a Savannah Designer Cat to but otherwise, Dogs Rule!), aside from the personal stuff, knowing that the bad side of the TOPIC, was controllable 50 Years ago, and is far more controllable Now. What's Really the bad Point, beyond Political?

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Utter contempt? heh. Look Kristopher I'm not utterly contemptible about anything really (except maybe d20' date=' and sherbert). Pot calling Kettle Black here, as I have made several points as well, which are handwaved away as being the ravings of a Lunatic, yet I can use pretty much the same links you provide, to back my case as well. I've also, never called you a Hippy, or in fact, Never pointed a Finger at Any Poster, and said "YOU ARE A HIPPY!" [/quote']

 

Who is handwaving your comments away as the ravings of a lunatic?

 

You might not have called anyone here a "hippy" directly, but when people post concerns about Orion, and you say "the concerns about this are just hippy nonsense" (paraphrasing), then it's not that hard to draw the third leg of the triangle on that one, really. You've strongly implied that anyone who wonders about the radiological or other impacts of an Orion launch is "a hippy".

 

Your Point' date=' seems to be basically to get in the last word, and take a cheap shot at someone who doesn't agree with your opinion.[/quote']

 

no.

 

I could be wrong in that' date=' but that's how I learn things. Originally, I had felt that you were simply on the opposite side of the debate but you stooped to taking a personal shot at me ( I would have been fine with generalist commentary and crazy folks yelling at people to get off their lawn, that's generalist, not personal). Personal shots, aren't cool.[/quote']

 

No, they're not, that's why you were called out on them.

 

Even in the above rebuttal' date=' it's all personal attack. [u']One has to wonder why such utter contempt is being expressed towards someone who is on the board for the big show.[/u]

 

"Rubber and glue" rebuttals of that sort aren't really up to par for these discussions.

 

If you don't want people to ask why you're displaying contempt, don't display contempt -- in other words, when you dismiss the concerns about Orion as "hippy nonsense" (paraphrasing), you dismiss anyone who is concerned about the impacts of Orion as "a hippy". When you act like only idiots could hold a position, you're implying that people who do hold that position are idiots.

 

So' date=' let me see if I can" Link up Pretty likes", to factual observations not from myself (Since, if I don't link to wikipedia every other sentence, I'm supposedly of sub human intellect).[/quote']

 

No one has said or implied any such thing.

 

I'll keep to Wikipedia since it seems to be the Ark of the Covenant here for rebuttal.

 

Hardly. It's a quick and easy reference that we all understand the limitations of.

 

Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Now. Freeman Dyson' date=' is apparently not a dumb man, having to take time off from advanced Studies to work on this stuff initially (From Princeton no less). Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines now being studied. Cheap interplanetary travel was the goal of the Orion Project.[/quote']

 

Freeman Dyson is not dumb At all. However, he does like to... think big. Very, very big.

 

So let's break it down a bit' date=' so I can see where the negativity comes from.[/quote']

 

More like realism.

 

1. Can we do it. Yes' date=' we could have done it back in the 50's and 60's (leaning towards the 60's myself. "Our motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'"~ Freeman Dyson[/quote']

 

I have serious doubts we could have done it in the 50s or 60s. Apollo was right at the very thinnest edge of our capabilites in its day. We weren't ready to go to Mars in 1965, or Saturn in 1970.

 

2. Is it Cheap? Hell Yeah. Gets rid of those pesky Nuclear Arsenals to. Shuttles about' date=' $6,000 per payload pound. A big Orion would be roughly $250.00 per Payload Pound, Per Launch. Fuels cheaper to. Roughly 175 Million per Launch. Shuttle burns up more money in gas.[/quote']

 

I would love to see a hard-headed breakdown of the estimated costs for Orion.

 

3. Are there "Bad Things" that can happen to you? Of course' date=' but then there is just as big a risk, with the conventional rockets as well. The folks in charge of the program, even after the disillusionment created by the fallout from the ground launch issues (no pun intended) showed that even with their most extensive launch schedule, the would have added less then 1% to the levels already being produced by the Super Powers testing in the 60's.[/quote']

 

Now that part simply does not add up, from what I can find. The entire 35 years of atmospheric testing amounted to 500 detonations. 500, over 35 years. For a single Orion launch, I'm finding cites for anywhere between 800 and 1200 detonations. So say about twice as many in a few minutes. And while they'd individually be smaller than some of the test detonations, they wouldn't really be that much "cleaner", in all likelihood. As pointed out, making a nuclear device smaller in yield does not scale down the output of radioisotopes automatically.

 

Those bad things could have been completely obliterated' date=' by the simple facts that they had also worked out a set up, to build the things and launch them from Orbit (would have needed two Heavy Lift (Saturn V or equal) launches to get it up there.[/quote']

 

We were, however, discussing Orion specifically as a heavy lifter.

 

4. Is there information on it other then Wikipedia? Yep. This shows the Good (which I like)' date=' AND the bad (Which I agree with by the way, I just consider it acceptable risk, like gasoline), in short, a very good, and heavily referenced for back tracking article: http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

 

It's very easy to understate or overlook the full scope of the risks and complications, because they can be subtle. See also, Cancer's post about the effects of the still-lingering radioisotopes from atmospheric testing.

 

5. Why not? There seems to be piles and piles of science and Data saying it's good' date=' and one report, not even related to it, saying it would be the end of all life on earth (slightly exaggerated)?[/quote']

 

Why not?

 

Because it has the potential to go wrong in a way that few of humanity's projects have gone wrong? Ever watch film of a rocket launch failure? Now imagine the same thing, about 5 detonations into the launch, with the Orion tipping back into the last detonation... and the remaining 995 devices onboard being caught in that last blast and dusted into the atmosphere. Yes, absolute worst case scenario. But possible, and dangerous in a way that dwarfs the danger of any conventional rocket failure.

 

Because there are a lot of questions and unknowns about the effects and safety of 1000 atmospheric nuclear detonations in rapid sequence?

 

The concerns about this aren't from people opposed to all nuclear power, or use of the technology. They... we aren't the kind of people who were protesting the Cassini launch because of the RTG onboard.

 

6. We're Running Out of Room. Dysons quote above is a good thing to think. It's supported by Other Smart people' date=' with all sorts of degrees and such hanging on their walls, as you can see by following the links.[/quote']

 

You mean room for human beings?

 

An attempt to colonize the rest of the solar system isn't going to solve that issue, not in time to make a difference.

 

So' date=' aside from the fact I don't like Hippies, Nuclear Protesters[/quote']

 

This isn't about hippies and nuclear protestors. No one here is a hippy or an anti-nuclear reactionary. The more you come back to that, the more damage you do to your own case.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

I find it very hard to follow Kris, so I'll just repeat one thing that he said:

 

Because it has the potential to go wrong in a way that few of humanity's projects have gone wrong? Ever watch film of a rocket launch failure? Now imagine the same thing, about 5 detonations into the launch, with the Orion tipping back into the last detonation... and the remaining 995 devices onboard being caught in that last blast and dusted into the atmosphere. Yes, absolute worst case scenario. But possible, and dangerous in a way that dwarfs the danger of any conventional rocket failure.

 

This is real life we are talking about, where design details can't be waved away, where things go wrong. Launch ten Orions, and this will happen. Look: I'm sure Orion would have gone years ago if Earth were being invaded by aliens, or was half of a double-planet system, because if the risk is worth it, it's worth it.

Conversely, if it's not, it's not. There's all kinds of costs and risks entailed in the Orion project. Fallout is a pretty big one, but there are other factors entering into the cost benefit analysis that boil down to it not being even remotely a good idea. (Like there not being that much uranium kicking around, and the flight testing that you're still ignoring.) And that's working with the 50 year old handwaving of some advocates that no rational economic actor would ever take as a planning basis.

To take these objections and caricature them as "Radiation is bad" doesn't even come close to being an argument for Orion.

Come up with a mission commensurate with the costs and downside risk, and we will do it.

[Kristopher]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

And RexMundi, it's not like I hate the idea of a far better heavy-lifter, or of Orion in particular. It would be awesome if the idea is as effective and economical and safe as you're making it out to be. Absolutely, beyond-words awesome.

 

But all the awesome in the world won't change the facts, whatever they are.

[Nyrath]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Well, the basic problem is that using chemical rockets as heavy lift vehicles makes as much sense as filling a public swimming pool with an eyedropper. Chemical rockets are far too weak.

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3ay.html

 

The biggest chemical booster contemplated is Sea Dragon, which can lift 550 metric tons.

 

A nuclear gas core booster could boost 1,000 metric tons. A nuclear planetary Orion could boost 3,000 metric tons. And a super Orion could boost 8,000,000 metric tons.

 

Better solutions are much more expensive, space elevators and related items. They need lots of infrastructure, and will take a long time to construct.

A basic space elevator could lift 2,000 metric tons/year. An advanced space elevator could lift 6,000 metric tons/year. A small Lofstrom loop could lift 40,000 metric tons/year. A Bifrost Bridge laser launcher could lift 175,200 metric tons/year. And a large Lofstrom loop could lift 6,000,000 metric tons/year.

 

Of course, space elevators and Lofstrom loops are pathetically vulnerable to terrorist attack.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

No-one's arguing that Orion is not likely to be the most efficient reaction engine possible for a very long time to come, just as fission-fusion-fission is the most powerful and most efficient way of releasing energy. And that goes two ways. Right now, we don't have any peaceful uses for f-f-f. That's frustrating. The problem is that we don't need to launch 8 million tons of anything into orbit nearly enough to embrace the downside risks, and this just isn't a process that scales down.

That's frustrating, too. Maybe someday we will have a plan that requires launch a city into orbit. But we don't now, and we certainly didn't 50 years ago.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

Maybe someday we will have a plan that requires launch a city into orbit. But we don't now' date=' and we certainly didn't 50 years ago.[/quote']

 

At least, not non-destructively, anyhow.

[Nyrath]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

The problem is that we don't need to launch 8 million tons of anything into orbit nearly enough to embrace the downside risks, and this just isn't a process that scales down.

That's frustrating, too. Maybe someday we will have a plan that requires launch a city into orbit. But we don't now, and we certainly didn't 50 years ago.

 

You might have noticed that there is a shortage of clean energy on planet Earth.

 

A series of space based solar power stations could be the solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Dealing_with_launch_costs

 

A single 4 gigawatt SPS would require about 80,000 metric tons to be boosted into orbit. The super Orion could send up 100 of these in one launch. Since each 4 GW SPS is the output of a largish nuclear reactor, one would need lots of SPS to meet the power needs of the planet.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

And maybe, in the future, we will have designed and built all those SPS and licked the transmission problem, and.....

As I say, no-one has said that there will be no use for Orion. Only that, right now, there isn't one.

[Nyrath]

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

 

And maybe, in the future, we will have designed and built all those SPS and licked the transmission problem, and.....

As I say, no-one has said that there will be no use for Orion. Only that, right now, there isn't one.

 

Well, by that reasoning there is no use for any of NASA's rocket boosters because currently there are no space probes scheduled to be launched. Nor is there any use for your automobile because you currently have no errands to run.

 

There are lots of space projects whose development efforts are on hold for the foreseeable future because there exists no heavy lift capacity. Once the capacity appears, development will re-start.