Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd)
Posted by Pasti on Feb 15, 2004 at 01:59
(67.69.242.158)Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd) (Wayne Smith)
"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 don't think it is.Apollo was a small ship, not a sluggish one, and it was much more maneouvrable thant what you propose.And yes, today's computer can do a lot,but you are still left with the problems of maneouvrability.
And yes, space is different from atmosphere, but in the opposite way that you think.It is much more unforgiving since friction woth the air does not oppose motion.Think about it."More informed and less sanctimonious?"
You only have general info,you are far from mastering any scientific and technological detail.
"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."
It is called engineering, but it is not exactly your strongest skill. Read again those books, or better, talk to any mechanic at any garage.He will tell you that no combustion engine (piston engine that is) can work under continuous burning.Why do you think the engines are called two-stroke or four-stroke engines?It is not because of the number of pistons (you have 4-stroke 6/8 cylinder engines).
"And the plasma from the reaction mass built into the pulse unit you genius."
Wyle E.Coyote, Engineering genius, try to listen to what I am saying.First of all,let me tell you what a plasma is, since you don't seem to have any clue.Plasma is nothing else than ionized gas (if you will bother too look, you will see that before 197- something plasma physics was called "Ionized gas physics")
Sure, you will have some plasma resulting from the explosion, but the bomb contains a few kg of fusionable material, and it's various layers and components of the casing.In the explosion you will get ionized atoms from the fusionable material,X-ray, gamma rays and whatever else electromagnetic radiation, ionized atoms from parts of the vaporized casing and debris from the casing.And that is all. The atoms will be highly energetic, but because of the lack of air,no other plasma can form from collisions with these ionized atoms, and more important,since the ionized atoms cannot dissipate their energy in the atmosphere, in a gas, you will have no pressure wave to push on the ship.
The only thing that will hit the ship will be some debris, radiation and highly energetic ioized atoms.But no pressure wave.If you knew any physics, you would realize this.
But never mind, I don't articularly care if you believe me.You say you are some reporter of some sort.Get some interviews with scientists and engineers,and they will confirm what I told you.
Or start reading for yourself."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 are simply dumb, or malintentioned.Irrespective of the principles of laser emission, there are two types of lasers.Continuous wave (CW in the dedicated literature)and pulsed lasers.
Before making a fool out of yourself,at least inform yourself about what you want to talk about.Do yourself a favor and look say on google, or your preferred search engine for "pulsed lasers" and "continuous wave lasers" .On google, you get 13,000 matches for the former, and 2300 for the latter.
"Like you have? You still don't even comprehend how it was designed. "
Sure...But you do, and you don't want to spoil your pristine and informed knowledge with anything scientific. Stay away from books, they bite,and God forbid,they might make you actually understand what you talk about.You are right, books are not for you, only oral tradition.
"So you were talking about warping of metal? I've forgotten the context. Physicist or Philosopher did you say?"
I have noticed that you have a very poor and selective attention span.Spacetime warp was the context.But I guess it is difficult for you to get that.And when I mentioned black-holes, I guess it was obvious for you I was talking about warping of metals.Good one!
"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."
OK, you insist on being stupid.No problem.
"What an utter waste of time."
Pretty much like reading,or reasearching for you.
"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."
Maybe they are,or maybe not.
"I doubt you will ever achieve anything of significance in your whole career."
No kidding?Who's the philosopher now?
"Therefore I should shut up and bow down to your superior intellect? No thanks."
No, you should at least try to check it out the facts I gave you, which you haven't done.
"You've already displayed your ignorance on this topic several times and I know enough about Orion to realise it works."
Comming from you, I'll take it as a compliment.
"So what if you are a physicist. That doesn't mean you know everything."
No,I don't know everything.But I know more than you,in this field at least.
"You know how to demand mathematical proof when losing a debate but Orion is clearly a mystery to you."
Right...Proofs are bad,simple details,unworthy for your attention, because you are concerned wih the big picture that I cannot understand.It is much better as you do,to blabber what you heard from others.Another good one pal!
"Why don't you come back and debate this after you have studied it a little."
You are the one who has to do serious studying.Maybe you should consider finishing highschool...
"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."
Yes, it might be possible.And yet, jet fighters use these chemical fuels quite efficiently.
"No atomic bomb on the other hand has ever accidentally detonated. There's some math for you Mr Physicist."
You are really thick, you know.The problem is not accidental detonation, but what you call controlled detonation.But again, this is just a mere detail unworthy of your so very broad knowledge...
"I don't have a half finished Orion in my garage so I have to refer to the only work actually done."
No, you are wildly extrapolating it.But you wouldn't know the difference.
"If its any consolation I am standing on the shoulders of giants as Newton would put it."
Actually you are just using their names and fame for your purpose.
"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."
Then do yourself a favor and ask them.Everything I told you is verifiable, if you bother to verify it.Go interview them, and other scientists.Let me know what they say.
"Try and remember I hear a lot of sarcasm from people and being only human it has become rather nerve grating."
I am sure you do.As surprising as it may be for you, I am not doing this just because I have some malefic pleasure to grind your nerves.But it is a pity to see so much effort going in the wrong direction, when it could be used for something more useful.
"It is terribly inefficient yet thousands of times better than anything else possible today."
Not for deep space travel.If you will check the original Orion project,the purpose was to put something in orbit. And even for this purpose, it is anything but efficient.Even ignoring radiation, and radioactivity, the efficiency of this propulsion system is very small, a lot of power is lost in vain, since only a part of the blast in the atmosphere is "captured" by the ship.
"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."
Try to understand one thing.In atmosphere it might work, but in deep space,it becomes useless.It is just not worth it, that is all.
And I did talk to wiser men, who knew both Dyson and Wheeler, and von Braun at the time.And something that might interest you in terms of the real value of the Orion project is the, hmm,let's call it the hidden facts, not to mention the political and social climate at the time.It is too much to write about it at this time, but maybe we could talk about these details in later postings.Bottom line, the entire Orion project had become a few years from its beginning more of a political issue and an instrument in the fight for power of the different "nuclear" factions in the US, the "bomb" makers, the "Orion" faction, and of course, the anti-nuclear faction.And both Dyson and Wheeler, as well as others,have been major players in this power game, and not by far just innocent supporters of the Orion project.
Really, you might want to take a deeper look into this, but it will take you some time to get out this kind of info.
"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."Still,it is the advertising, so to speak, that you put up.You know what I mean.
"Like your laser launcher."
What are you talking about?I never advocated a laser launcher.I just told you that all power lasers are pulsed.