One more reason why spaceflight without Orion technology is not viable

Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...ort_code=2xeyh

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 4:44:07 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...ort_code=2xeyh

The use of nuclear bombs in space is generally frowned upon, although perhaps less so by China and Russia.

During most of a three year journey to Mars and back the food will taste rather crummy.

On Tue, 5 May 2015 01:44:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

It is, of course, a totally ludicrous, unsupportable, unsustainable,
and unworkable solution. Let's not forget that. Thankfully, nobody is
wasting money on exploring it anymore.

On 5/5/15 6:41 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 01:44:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

It is, of course, a totally ludicrous, unsupportable, unsustainable,
and unworkable solution. Let's not forget that. Thankfully, nobody is
wasting money on exploring it anymore.

NERVA. You forgot NERVA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Not just theoretical, but actually tested.

On Tue, 05 May 2015 08:15:08 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote:

On 5/5/15 6:41 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 01:44:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

It is, of course, a totally ludicrous, unsupportable, unsustainable,
and unworkable solution. Let's not forget that. Thankfully, nobody is
wasting money on exploring it anymore.

NERVA. You forgot NERVA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Not just theoretical, but actually tested.

Yeah, and a much more practical concept than Orion. But still quite
archaic and probably not of much use for future missions. High thrust
ion engines are probably the future of deep space missions (very
likely utilizing nuclear energy of some sort for the actual energy
source).

On 5/5/2015 10:15 AM, lal_truckee wrote:
On 5/5/15 6:41 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 01:44:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Orion is the only theoretically-feasible (within any kind of
realistic time-frame) way to go on missions further than the moon.

It is, of course, a totally ludicrous, unsupportable, unsustainable,
and unworkable solution. Let's not forget that. Thankfully, nobody is
wasting money on exploring it anymore.

NERVA. You forgot NERVA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Not just theoretical, but actually tested.


And also VASIMR

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/tra...ropulsion.html

also tested

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 9:31:19 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yeah, and a much more practical concept than Orion. But still quite
archaic and probably not of much use for future missions. High thrust
ion engines are probably the future of deep space missions (very
likely utilizing nuclear energy of some sort for the actual energy
source).

Even high thrust ion engines (or the Shawyer drive, if we should be so lucky as
for it to actually work) are kind of slow for manned missions, more so given
the radiation issue recently highlighted.

John Savard