Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd)


Posted by Wayne Smith on Feb 12, 2004 at 18:33
(203.194.42.100)

Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd) (Pasti)

"Huh? According to you such thing can never land, so you have to carry everything to it, from fuel to materials. So you need an extraordinary expensive and complex infrastructure to support this project.Which for the time being "ain't none", so to speak.Or maybe you would like the two remaining old shuttles (or three, whatever) to spoonfeed the load in the cargo bay?It would take at least 5 years (you can do ~20 trips a year if you use at maximum the existing shuttles which have pitifully small cargo bays compared to the scale of the ship you propose) to load a ship like you propose!Good thinking!"

This is an Orion about the same size as a cruise liner. It could carry a small fleet of its own shuttles. Shuttles designed for space use only. A lot simpler to construct than those 3 dinosaurs Nasa still maintains. Thank you for the compliment but it's rather obvious thinking.

"You missed mu point.Before you start to mine someplace else,the ship will have to be refueled by Earth, and since it cannot land, the fuel has to be shuttled to it.Which adds to the above loading time."

You assume too much. There is no need for further resources from earth. The whole point of using Orion is that it can be built large enough to carry everything it needs for years. Including the industry to utilise space resources. The only contact with earth will be by radio and occasional shuttle missions for crew turnaround.

"And suppose you find a "good" planet, say Mars, where you can refuel it from mining.How do you do it?If you want to land it how will you land it?it was only designed for takeoff.If it doesn't land on Mars either, then you need to have shuttles aboard for various tasks, and landable containers.
Wow!This thing should be of the size of a star destroyer from Star Wars!"

Asteroids are a better choice. Mars is an option though. Orions don't need to land as I said before. One third the gravity of earth on Mars so shuttle missions to the surface are quite feasible.
Pretty close to a star destroyer. Maybe even bigger.

"Protection of the crew and cargo load against radiation?Have you checked the cross-sections for steel under X and gamma radiation? You claim 60 cm of steel would suffice.If you take a look in those tables, and do an estimate calculation for the elmg yield of a fusion bomb, you will see that your steel and frame protection is bogus."

The habitation section is situated at the top of the vehicle. Radiation exposure depends on distance. That amount of shielding would suffice but the infrastructure offers many times that thickness at any rate. All the more reason to build it big.

"And what makes you think that your ideea will cost less?Even if you make the parts in China, your project will cause a depression, not a recession."

An Orion can be built in a shipyard. Even an entire series of launches were estimated to cost around the same as Apollo. One launch would be a fraction of that. The pulse units are the most expensive items. We currently have stockpiles of weapons grade fissionables lying around doing nothing.

"Too bad,since I am not exactly pleased with the NASA way of doing things.Especially in the last 20 years."

In total agreement with you there. In fact I would go further and say they should never have been created. I think the airforce could have done a much better job. I'm glad Nasa is now increasingly coming under military leadership. It needs some direction.

"You must be joking.Compared to the scale of your project, ISS is just spare change.Do a little bit of math to convince yourself."

The ISS is a joke. I'm deadly serious. The cost of launching all those sections was staggering. It's nothing but cobbled together spent boosters and out dated solar panels. An Orion is the cheapest way to launch payload. The bigger it is the cheaper it is to launch on a per kilo basis. One lift and we have a Star Destroyer in deep space. Not a flimsy piece of crap in orbit but a solid spacious interplanetary space vehicle.

"It will be.In fact there is (and I don't mean the Orion project)with the current technology, but as I said before, what lacks is financial commitement."

Stop day dreaming. Those pipedreams are nothing more than science fiction. Elevators? Hah! Laser launchers? They fry the vehicle. Fusion? Biggest pipedream of them all. They can't even make it work for commercial energy applications. It will never propel spacecraft. Anti-matter? Get real. We can't make enough or even contain it properly. All these ideas are far too futuristic. I doubt they can ever be made to work. Might as well sit on your hands and wait for warp drives to come along. Funny thing is that even if a warp drive was possible and we built one tomorrow morning it would be banned the same day. Imagine what an inertia weapon it would be. Great for drilling holes through the earth. Get your head out of the clouds. Orion is technologically possible right now. It was possible back in the 1960's. Maybe you are happy to daydream but some of us have waited long enough.



Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]