Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd)

Posted by
Wayne Smith on Feb 14, 2004 at 23:31

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

"What land will you live on?You just said the contraption doesn't need to land, spaceshuttles are small because it is self-sufficient,so what land?"

Living off the land means using what's out there. Your obsession with landing is out of place with this topic. True interplanetary spacecraft don't land. Like Starships they are best refueled and refitted at Space Stations. Every possible resource needed can be found in space. Dead comets are rich in volatiles. Metal asteroids provide infrastructure. Orion is the key to getting our foot in the door and then forcing it wide open. Tell me that metaphor didn't go over your head as well.

"How?100,000 tonns of material to build a fleet of ships from mining?Be serious."

Whatever it takes. Mining asteroids doesn't take a great deal of start up material. It's probably a lot less than that figure but I don't see any reason not to travel in style.

"The number does not change very much, even with fusion bombs.Remember, you said you want supplies on the ship for long term."

No, I want supplies on the ship for turning asteroids into factories. We "could" carry longterm resources but its better to carry what is necessary to industrialise space quickly.

"Interview a pilot who has done in flight refuling, and ask him how easy it is to do it."

I know its terribly hard to perform in atmosphere. I've seen it done. The Apollo crew managed a coupling with almost no fuel remaining in the lander. That was without todays computers. Space is very different to what you are talking about. It's a silly comparison.

"I am a physicist, unfortunately for you.And if I am as ignorant as you say, you realize what that makes you?"

More informed and less sanctimonious?

"The piston is moved not by the explosion per se, but by the expanion of the gas in the chamber under the heat of the explosion"


"which btw is a rather mild explosion since the nominal mixture is something around 16 parts of air to 1 part of gas"

Save your breath. It is a well known fact that the heat generated by internal combustion engines is sufficient to melt it if the burning was continuous. It's called engineering. Look it up in your high school physics book under E.

"you should also know that sine in open space there is NO AIR, the nuclear explosion cannot produce any pressure waves, so any moment transferred to the ship by an explosion is due only to the ejection of the bomb and to the impact with the debris from the explosion and byproducts."

And the plasma from the reaction mass built into the pulse unit you genius.

"Only in your ignorant mind. All high power lasers are pulsed lasers,exactly because of the high power, which in continuous wave would melt the active medium, the laser medium, if you know what that is."

I somehow guessed you might answer in such a fashion. Hence the term "A laser on the other hand is continuous FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES." I am perfectly aware of what the initials L.A.S.E.R stand for thank you very much. Light being both waves and particles, quantum mechanics, all that crap. The pulses are so short that FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES it may be considered as a continuous heat. These attempts of yours to nitpick and illustrate what a super brain you are really bores me.

"you'd better start reading some serious books before preaching this cause."

Like you have? You still don't even comprehend how it was designed. Was 'Condescension for Beginners' your last read?

"Not a warp drive, a warp!Which means you have no ideea what that is."

So you were talking about warping of metal? I've forgotten the context. Physicist or Philosopher did you say? Sounds like you must be a philospher. You keep making all these hairbrained assumptions based on flawed reasoning. You wouldn't make a very good physicist.

"I am currently doing quantum gravitation,so I kind of have a clue..."

What an utter waste of time. Keep at it!

"I have seen my more than fair share of ideas like yours,from perpetual motion"

So Orion is comparable to Perpetual Motion? Freeman Dyson and the other physicists on the Orion Project were and still are 100 times the physicist you will ever be. I doubt you will ever achieve anything of significance in your whole career.

"It is not a matter of credentials, or schooling, or anything.It is as simple as this:you are proposing something and you don't have the knowledge necessary to support your ideas."

Therefore I should shut up and bow down to your superior intellect? No thanks. You've already displayed your ignorance on this topic several times and I know enough about Orion to realise it works. If you haven't figured that out yet then you haven't a clue. So what if you are a physicist. That doesn't mean you know everything. You know how to demand mathematical proof when losing a debate but Orion is clearly a mystery to you. Why don't you come back and debate this after you have studied it a little.

"This is dumb, to say the least."

To suggest that big fireworks are dangerous? If you build a chemical rocket for space travel there is a very good chance you will end up like Challenger or Collumbia. No atomic bomb on the other hand has ever accidentally detonated. There's some math for you Mr Physicist.

"I don't care what you do for a living"

What a coincidence. I feel the same way about you.

"I am only interested if you can or not to actually discuss this above the level of Dyson said or Dyson did, etc.If you have the knowledge, schooling and credentials are irrelevant.But in your case it is obvious that you lack most of that knowledge."

I'm afraid not. I don't have a half finished Orion in my garage so I have to refer to the only work actually done. If its any consolation I am standing on the shoulders of giants as Newton would put it. So far it hasn't been necessary but if a tough question does come my way I do know a number of rocket engineers I can pass questions along to.

"You can persuade me, but not with useless words and slogans.You can persuade me with facts, real scientific facts, not preaching."

Sorry. After a few years it comes out like a sermon from constant practice. Try and remember I hear a lot of sarcasm from people and being only human it has become rather nerve grating.

"the laws of physics, from mechanics to nuclear physics, more than suggest that your project is wrong for deep space travel, and inefficient (not necessarily in terms of power)for orbital launches."

It is terribly inefficient yet thousands of times better than anything else possible today. Look at the cost of putting the ISS together. With Orion we could put anything into space with one shot. Perhaps you should talk to wiser men than myself if unconvinced but do not think Orion is unworkable. Greater minds than mine proved it feasible long ago.

"Some of the people who contributed to your project might want their money back after reading this thread."

I don't solicit funds. The ball is rolling on the fund but it is only money raised from merchandising Orion paraphernalia at this point. Nobody has bought shares in a non-existant vehicle and I think anyone who did would be familiar with the concept and not rely on this thread for guidance. Opening a trust account is incredibly costly and complex when these kinds of sums are involved. Daedalus started back in the 70's. Money from membership fee's and BIS magazine sales I believe. That concept remains scifi to this day as it requires Deuterium pellets ignited by laser. Something they imagined was just around the corner. Like your laser launcher. Unlike Orion which is possible today.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]