What would Dr. Strangelove think?The "piece de resistance" of the Orion development project was the Orion Battleship, a 10-story-tall spaceborne "doomsday" weapon that would carry more nuclear firepower than a nuclear submarine.
Project Orion battleship
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Project Orion battleship
http://fantastic-plastic.com/ProjectOri ... ogPage.htm
Evil is evil, no matter how small
Re: Project Orion battleship
YEEEEEHAWWW!kunkmiester wrote:http://fantastic-plastic.com/ProjectOri ... ogPage.htm
What would Dr. Strangelove think?The "piece de resistance" of the Orion development project was the Orion Battleship, a 10-story-tall spaceborne "doomsday" weapon that would carry more nuclear firepower than a nuclear submarine.
Vae Victis
Re: Project Orion battleship
kunkmiester wrote:What would Dr. Strangelove think?
Wrong character. More like "Das ist gut, mein Führer"!?!?djolds1 wrote:YEEEEEHAWWW!
Nixon would have built one. Reagan would have ordered ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)
It's sort of funny, most people don't realize that without the nuclear test ban treaty, we'd probably have giant honking interplanetary battleships blasting their way around proplled by nuclear detonations.
Not that they would be very useful or economically justifiable. But in theory, we could send one to Alpha Centauri in 44 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)
It's sort of funny, most people don't realize that without the nuclear test ban treaty, we'd probably have giant honking interplanetary battleships blasting their way around proplled by nuclear detonations.
Not that they would be very useful or economically justifiable. But in theory, we could send one to Alpha Centauri in 44 years.
-
nextbigfuture
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 5:48 pm
the economics would have worked for mining the solar system
$100 billion per person (7 billion people) in the asteriods.
Orion could have launched for less than one dollar per kg.
I have designed a nuclear cannon variant of Project Orion which could launch many thousands of tons supplies and g-hardened electronics super-cheaper cheap.
Dig a deep hole - like oil drilling or like the hundreds of underground nuclear tests.
Place one of the nuclear bombs from stockpile down there.
Pack the Orion based material for the one charge. That material will get converted into plasma- making a "super-chemical propulsion" .Except the temperature will be 100 million degrees but that cools to 100,000 degrees or less as it reaches the projectile-payload.
Build the projectile on top of the bomb and propellant.
Scale it to launch at about 5000 Gs.
When the projectile clears the opening of the hole. collapse it or trigger the blast cover to contain the radioactive fallout.
One launch would put up more supplies than all of the chemical launches over decades.
150-kiloton underground tests are still allowed (the largest allowed under the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty).
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/underg ... -salt.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/nuclea ... llout.html
High G launch specifics have been worked out for chemical launchers like Quicklaunch
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/ocean- ... ivery.html
9 meter long projectiles will definitely hold up. Construction using nuclear sub like hull material and methods could allow 12-20 meter long projectiles. 1000-20,000 ton projectiles. Use tapered shape of the quicklaunch projectile and have multiple projectiles if using a bigger bomb. Larger circumference hole.
there is uranium in the moon and asteroids. Once a large infrastructure is bootstrapped with this method then proceed as per Orion based nuclear space program that is outside of the Earth's magnetosphere.
=== Note there is no particular incremental risks outside versus any solar system capable space program. Even if I do not use nuclear bomb propulsion. If I have free movement around the solar system using any other means, then I can take a year or more to divert near earth asteroids for greater than nuclear bomb energy bombardment of earth.
Orion could have launched for less than one dollar per kg.
I have designed a nuclear cannon variant of Project Orion which could launch many thousands of tons supplies and g-hardened electronics super-cheaper cheap.
Dig a deep hole - like oil drilling or like the hundreds of underground nuclear tests.
Place one of the nuclear bombs from stockpile down there.
Pack the Orion based material for the one charge. That material will get converted into plasma- making a "super-chemical propulsion" .Except the temperature will be 100 million degrees but that cools to 100,000 degrees or less as it reaches the projectile-payload.
Build the projectile on top of the bomb and propellant.
Scale it to launch at about 5000 Gs.
When the projectile clears the opening of the hole. collapse it or trigger the blast cover to contain the radioactive fallout.
One launch would put up more supplies than all of the chemical launches over decades.
150-kiloton underground tests are still allowed (the largest allowed under the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty).
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/underg ... -salt.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/nuclea ... llout.html
High G launch specifics have been worked out for chemical launchers like Quicklaunch
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/ocean- ... ivery.html
9 meter long projectiles will definitely hold up. Construction using nuclear sub like hull material and methods could allow 12-20 meter long projectiles. 1000-20,000 ton projectiles. Use tapered shape of the quicklaunch projectile and have multiple projectiles if using a bigger bomb. Larger circumference hole.
there is uranium in the moon and asteroids. Once a large infrastructure is bootstrapped with this method then proceed as per Orion based nuclear space program that is outside of the Earth's magnetosphere.
=== Note there is no particular incremental risks outside versus any solar system capable space program. Even if I do not use nuclear bomb propulsion. If I have free movement around the solar system using any other means, then I can take a year or more to divert near earth asteroids for greater than nuclear bomb energy bombardment of earth.
-
nextbigfuture
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 5:48 pm
5000 Gs is the same fly for Quicklaunch and other Chem Guns
Quicklaunch would have and past experimental gun launch systems had the 5000G launch profile as well. My nuclear cannon just scales it up. the launch guns have gotten close to the right speed, there were no projectile problems - the issues were getting enough propulsive force. My system has no problem getting enough force. It is just getting sufficient control. If needed we can launch projectiles that are solid refined metal and let them impact on the moon. The refined metal would be useful supplies and material for colonies. It is like placing highly refined material deposits where you want. Pykrete (water ice concrete) could be used to place water - chemical fuel - where a colony would need it.
It is possible to get it down to somewhat less G force (maybe down to 2000) by digging a deeper hole. Maybe 3500 to 10000 meters. But the cost and effort for the hole increases. going into a salt dome would be probably be easiest.
The deepest mine in the world is TauTona in Carletonville, South Africa at 3.9 kilometers. The deepest man-made borehole in the world is the Kola Superdeep Borehole (Russia, 1989) at 12,262 meters (7.6 miles).
A more expensive but long hold could be had by digging with a slight slope into an equatorial mountain range. Topographical map of Mount Kenya - looks like 20-30 miles of slope. Issues of getting the international cooperation. Becomes like digging a sloped version of the chunnel.
I would prefer not to spend so much on the disposable hole and work out toughening the projectile to keep things super-cheap.
It is possible to get it down to somewhat less G force (maybe down to 2000) by digging a deeper hole. Maybe 3500 to 10000 meters. But the cost and effort for the hole increases. going into a salt dome would be probably be easiest.
The deepest mine in the world is TauTona in Carletonville, South Africa at 3.9 kilometers. The deepest man-made borehole in the world is the Kola Superdeep Borehole (Russia, 1989) at 12,262 meters (7.6 miles).
A more expensive but long hold could be had by digging with a slight slope into an equatorial mountain range. Topographical map of Mount Kenya - looks like 20-30 miles of slope. Issues of getting the international cooperation. Becomes like digging a sloped version of the chunnel.
I would prefer not to spend so much on the disposable hole and work out toughening the projectile to keep things super-cheap.
The problem with 5,000 G is that it limits the sophistication of your payload because of the testing required.
And your airframe to payload ratio is not too hot.
And you had better be launching from the top of a very tall mountain.
I kinda favor the launch loop.
And your airframe to payload ratio is not too hot.
And you had better be launching from the top of a very tall mountain.
I kinda favor the launch loop.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
If I was going to use a nuclear propulsion system in Earth's atmosphere, I'd go with a spaceplane powered by a NERVA style reactor. Significantly less fallout than ground-launching an Orion.
Orion is kinda cool for deep space travel. Some derivative of VASIMR will probably be sufficient within the inner solar system (Earth, moon, Mars, Venus, etc.).
For deep space, something like this is also an interesting update on the Orion/Daedalus concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II_%28spacecraft%29
Orion is kinda cool for deep space travel. Some derivative of VASIMR will probably be sufficient within the inner solar system (Earth, moon, Mars, Venus, etc.).
For deep space, something like this is also an interesting update on the Orion/Daedalus concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II_%28spacecraft%29
Last edited by CaptainBeowulf on Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oh.they.would.be.very.useful..We'd.have.the.capacity.to.put.REAL.bases.on.the.moon.and.Mars,.Ceres,.TallDave wrote:Nixon would have built one. Reagan would have ordered ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)
It's sort of funny, most people don't realize that without the nuclear test ban treaty, we'd probably have giant honking interplanetary battleships blasting their way around proplled by nuclear detonations.
Not that they would be very useful or economically justifiable. But in theory, we could send one to Alpha Centauri in 44 years.
Titan.etc..With.resources.being.shipped.around.and.big.honking.space.colonies.being.built..
Heck,.an.Orion.can.move.an.asteroid,.either.for.capture.mining.or.to.deflect.from.an.impact.trajectory..
The.effing.greens.stole.the.future.
Do you make your text hard to read on purpose or are you just trying to get people to ignore you?IntLibber wrote:Oh.they.would.be.very.useful..We'd.have.the.capacity.to.put.REAL.bases.on.the.moon.and.Mars,.Ceres,.TallDave wrote:Nixon would have built one. Reagan would have ordered ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... ropulsion)
It's sort of funny, most people don't realize that without the nuclear test ban treaty, we'd probably have giant honking interplanetary battleships blasting their way around proplled by nuclear detonations.
Not that they would be very useful or economically justifiable. But in theory, we could send one to Alpha Centauri in 44 years.
Titan.etc..With.resources.being.shipped.around.and.big.honking.space.colonies.being.built..
Heck,.an.Orion.can.move.an.asteroid,.either.for.capture.mining.or.to.deflect.from.an.impact.trajectory..
The.effing.greens.stole.the.future.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
nextbigfuture
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 5:48 pm
even just launching supplies at less than $1/kg would matter
Launching tens of thousands of tons of supplies and raw materials at less than $1/kg would be huge.
Do not have to have a lot of g-hardened electronics. Although the one hour long video of a google talk by Quicklaunch indicates that regular electronics (like for cellphones) is easily converted to a high G satellite by using the right epoxy and swtiching out for tougher transformer components. They cheaply made a roughly 1.5 meter tall satellite that was given high-g launch tests using that method.
most of what is launched is fuel. Fuel can take high-Gs.
Regular launch systems can take the 5% of stuff that needs to be 3-5Gs or less (people, non-hardened electronics and systems). But 95% plus fuel, refined metals could go up for less than $1/kg.
another point is that with the ability to launch so much weight so cheaply then a lot of redundant systems can be launched. Try to use the quicklaunch approach to make high-g satellites and do not do a lot of testing and send them up and see if they survived.
Do not have to have a lot of g-hardened electronics. Although the one hour long video of a google talk by Quicklaunch indicates that regular electronics (like for cellphones) is easily converted to a high G satellite by using the right epoxy and swtiching out for tougher transformer components. They cheaply made a roughly 1.5 meter tall satellite that was given high-g launch tests using that method.
most of what is launched is fuel. Fuel can take high-Gs.
Regular launch systems can take the 5% of stuff that needs to be 3-5Gs or less (people, non-hardened electronics and systems). But 95% plus fuel, refined metals could go up for less than $1/kg.
another point is that with the ability to launch so much weight so cheaply then a lot of redundant systems can be launched. Try to use the quicklaunch approach to make high-g satellites and do not do a lot of testing and send them up and see if they survived.