Re: Project Orion Reborn(cont'd)


Posted by Wayne Smith on Feb 13, 2004 at 18:17
(203.194.43.136)

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

"Well, I don't think you can stock fuel on it for years."

With a view to living off the land we don't need to be totally self sufficient. The primary objective is to set up industrial facilities so a permanent foothold in space can be maintained. No flag ceremony and a quick death. Deep space habitats and shipyards are the goal. Bases for refueling and construction of other ships.

"Thousands and thousands of fission bombs,"

Hydrogen bombs.

"plus food,"

Soil and sunlight do exist off earth.

"plus whatever materials necessary for taking advantage of the space resources,"

About 100,000 tons payload should more than comfortably take care of that.

"plus another propulsin system based on jets of one sort or another, plus shuttles."

Ofcourse.

"It would be a hellhole for the crew in long flights."

Rubbish. Each crew member could have their own room. They could take along a swimming pool and fill it up after the ship starts cruising and enough centrifugal gravity is created from spinning the vehicle. Each night a Turkey or side of beef could be thawed from one of the freezers. Compared to a Saturn V it's a luxury liner.

"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..."

Asteroids have virtually zero gravity and are way too small to land on. Why on earth would you suggest such a daft idea. You need only match velocities, stabilise its spin and use shuttles. A lot of material can just be sent over by ropes. Hollowing out asteroids isn't difficult. Check out the permanent website for details.

"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."

You are still thinking in terms of chemical rocket limitations. I realise that those big fireworks are more difficult to construct as you scale them up but you have to try and understand that the opposite rule applies to Orions. The bigger they are the better. I have no fixed plan for scale. The plan is to determine the ideal payload mass and then scale the Orion to comfortably manage such a payload. Then pulse units can later be scaled to suit the Orion(hopefully).

"Who estimated that, you?"

Not me. George Dyson told me. You would have to ask him about the source.

"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."

Still thinking in terms of chemical rocket technology. So sad. I don't think you are capable of grasping this concept at all.

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

That's rich coming from someone as ignorant as you.

" "Laser launchers? They fry the vehicle."

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

That's how I feel. Oh boy...this guy has no clue. As your ignorance surfaces your comments seem to be getting increasingly sarcastic. Does your car engine melt? No? Why not? Because it operates on pulse technology. Orion is like a flying piston. The heat from a nuclear detonation is so shortlived that it dissipates from the plate before the next heat wave arrives. A laser on the other hand is continuous for all intents and purposes. Orion doesn't even need a cooling system. Another reason why its a lot simpler in design. It's clear to me now that you have absolutely no idea about this topic. I've met school kids with a better understanding.

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

They are nothing but a mathematical formula at this point in time. Alcubierres paper gives an amusing account. Warp drives are impossible in my opinion. Mathematically they might be fun to deliberate but the only way to warp space time significantly is through the use of macroscopic masses. Black holes and possibly neutron stars. Believe me, such a fantasy machine if real would punch holes through the earth if you pointed it the wrong way. Read up on special relativity when you get a chance. Thats enough scifi please. Such a waste of time. I see that you can't out argue me so you are now following the predictable routine of attacking your debating opponents credentials and schooling. I guess the debate must be nearly over.

"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."

Better you than me. Give my regards to the crew of Columbia and Challenger.

"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."

Obviously you haven't visited http://www.projectorion.com or else you would realise that a fund has been started. I also founded the Pro-Nuclear Space Movement back in 98 to promote concepts like Orion. Within a couple of years the Nuclear Initiative was announced by NASA. The Mars Society interviewed me last year for their radio show. I've written articles for SpaceDaily.com and other magazines. I've discussed Orion with the likes of Robert Zubrin and Jerry Pournelle. I'm doing all I can but I'm only one man. It's important to stamp out ignorance too. I know I can't persuade you that Orion makes sense as you are obviously too proud to admit being wrong. The important thing is that you aren't the only one reading this.

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]