Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd)


Posted by Pasti on Feb 13, 2004 at 11:32
(67.69.241.206)

Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd) (Wayne Smith)

"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."

I am afraid you ned something much larger than than a crusise ship.Especially if you want shuttles on it.

"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."

Well, I don't think you can stock fuel on it for years.Thousands and thousands of fission bombs, plus food, plus whatever materials necessary for taking advantage of the space resources, plus another propulsin system based on jets of one sort or another, plus shuttles. It would be a hellhole for the crew in long flights.

"Asteroids are a better choice."

Right...Especially in out solar system. Not to mention they are easy to land on too.Especially if they have spin.An Orion could hardly land on a palnet. For an asteroid,it pretty much means to teach an elephant to jump on a rolling ball and stay on it...

"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."

Somehow, a star destroyer is a little bigger than a cruise liner, if you can play with the proportions...About 10-20 imes at least.So you are looking to an Orion up to about 3000-6000 feet long or more, and probably a few hundred feet wide too.

"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."

Structure screening is baloney, and big time.Have you done the calculations I suggested?If you did, you would have realized that X-rays and gamma rays go almost without absoption through steel.The same is true about scattering. Remember what a mushroom cloud looks like?The ship will be in the middle of several thousand such clouds at liftoff.
So forget about the protection you say.By the time it gets in orbit it will be a hot radioactive piece of junk.

"An Orion can be built in a shipyard. Even an entire series of launches were estimated to cost around the same as Apollo."

Who estimated that, you?Recheck thew math.

"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."

You are fantasizing.You cannot have only one launch,forget about that, it's also baloney.And the fact you already have fissionables "around", whatever that means for you, it's not a lot of help in building your contraption.

"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."

Direction from the military?That's a good one.Short,dry,two-word joke: army intelligence. If you give the project to the military, they will turn the ship around and make it into a bomb launching cannon.

"An Orion is the cheapest way to launch payload."

Yeah, and in the process rendering it useless.And the cost for that, is by no means as small as you claim.Who estimated the cost of launching for Orion, Enron?

"The bigger it is the cheaper it is to launch on a per kilo basis."

Yeah, right.For the time being, the larger it is the heavier it is, and the more detonation power you need.I don't see the cheaper part comming into play.

"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."

You don't know much about engineering and science , do you?

"Laser launchers? They fry the vehicle."

And a thermonuclear blast won't?Oh boy...


"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."

Do you know what warp is or what it does?It doesn't look like that.

"Get your head out of the clouds. Orion is technologically possible right now. It was possible back in the 1960's."

Orion is an aberration, as much now as it was in the 60's.And yes, it is possible, but it would be stupid go along with the ideea. One might as well use jet engines to propel a ship, it is more efficient than the farting blast ideea.

"Maybe you are happy to daydream but some of us have waited long enough."

Then why don't you actually do something useful instead of preaching on the internet? Start your own company and market the concept,start attractig funds to make it happen.And when it is done, you might consider volunteeering and taking some of the others tired of waiting with you.
Otherwise, you are waisting your breath.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]