Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion

Point Summary of Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion in
Space:

1. It is not a pusher-plate but a type of cannon that should contain
the blast. The cannon could be described as a pusher-plate with walls
on it, obviously to focus the energy released by the blast. Failing to
focus the blast would also destroy many more satellites than is
necessary (EMP) and is also very wasteful of the energy release. The
number of explosions required to give propulsion would thus be much
less.
2. The cannon is an ancient device but invented in a remarkable piece
of history where the Chinese failed to develop its effective
application. Unfortunately the English language does not have an
alternative and less warlike term for a hollow tube with one end
sealed by a pusher plate. America, the inventor of a new super
"gun-powder", the atomic bomb, thus is repeating history by
accidentally side-stepping the challenge of physical containment. The
pusher-plate concept seeks to avoid the challenge of physical
containment, a mistake. It is to be suggested "the inventor of new and
overwhelming explosion will fail to develop its most significant
application because of an over-whelmed sense of what the challenge of
physical containment will involve".
3. Orion should never take off from the ground, but would be built in
space. It would test the efficiency of our ability to push payload
into space, but would limit all tests to outer space orbits and beyond
where solar radiation is an existing malignant factor. As such it
could be said to be a "green technology" in that malignant radiation
releases in space are already a natural occurrence. The test apparatus
being non-tether able in such an orbit would require from the very
beginning a pilot and massive counter-thrust chemical engines to
return the test for inspection. An illustration of this apparatus is
on the website. http://www.tide2000.com/eppp/newdiag.htm
4. Only Sir Arthur C Clarke was prepared to allude in the BBC
documentary on Orion to the "Interstellar" aspirations of atomic
propulsion in space. Theological frameworks for interstellar travel
within the context of the history of science can be made but are as
likely to be unpopular as real science. However the initial intentions
of the Orion Project to travel purely within our solar system would
suffice because the arrival at this capability would automatically
allow high speed tests to be undertaken at will. However speaking as
an economist the enormous funding required for such a project might
not be forthcoming unless an underlying aspiration to open fertile
territories beyond our star were at least a minor possibility.
5. It should not be assumed that the human being suffers the same
intolerance to G force in space in exactly the same proportions as it
is experienced on earth until real time data can be gathered.
Acceleration is measured as a factor of time squared. Clearly
relativity in space may work in our favour and allow travel under more
G than is possible than on earth, something required if we were to
reach the stars within an economic time period.
6. Our world without Project Orion is in danger of dispensing with the
only natural theory of the non use of nuclear weapons. If we miss the
point that such explosions have an economic potential for use in
space, perhaps because we proceeded initially with an alternative
theory of non-use so-called "MAD", then we are left at an evolutionary
disadvantage. That a weapon is "horrible" is not an adequate theory of
non-use, as many wars have inadvertently proved with other new
technologies. That its use in war would mean a loss of its economic
opportunity and value in space, is a significant deterrent. The Orion
Project book by Dyson mentions NASA commenting it would be a useful
way to dispose of or to consume fissile material. More than that it is
an essential theory of non use of such materials and would hopefully
when demand consumption in space increased to a certain level, call
upon the dismantling of thermonuclear weapons to free up the atomic
cores for use in the profitable area of space propulsion.
7. Project Orion once constructed in space, like the first cannons
made in many pieces, would have the potential to actually lift or pull
heavy objects into space. The bizarre "free energy" idea of the "sky
hook" thus has a new and powerful application. If the cannon in orbit
were to weigh 500 tonnes it would we might hope be able to lift 20
times its own weight, the dangling sky cables being supported by high
altitude weather balloons. The environmental costs of currently
pushing payload into space would thus be super ceded forever by a new
capability to pull (as in a building site crane or harbour tug) 10,000
tonnes into orbit in one go by firing atomic explosions harmlessly
away from earth whilst in space at an angle to it.
8. The number of explosions estimated as needed for interplanetary
travel by Orion is far too high. The frictionless, weightlessness of
space means that following Newton's F=MA the acceleration would
strictly not diminish over any amount of time. However again
relativity would likely introduce some gradual diminishment of
acceleration over the time period. The expectation of the requirement
of one explosion a day in space would not be unreasonable until proven
otherwise to maintain acceleration and hence gravity levels. This of
course assumes that the pusher-plate has been given some containing
walls and is not discharging energy willy-nilly across the heavens.
9. Occam's razor theorem highlights the essence of simplicity in
invention. By determining to use a cannon/tube/canister rather than a
pusher-plate with complicated hydraulics and ejection procedures, we
can draw from a near millennium's wealth of experience in the
development of the cannon to musket, then rifle. The use of cartridges
and their subsequent ejection is likely to provide engineers with more
insight on how an interplanetary craft can be efficiently powered,
than the noble but essentially misguided attempt by Orioneers to
re-write centuries of physical containment into riding shock waves.
When it comes to the challenge of physical containment in space, it
maybe like testing a light bulb in orbit, but we must face up to the
challenge of physical containment in space. This route has seen many
hundreds of years of development tests and failures since the dawn of
the original gunpowder age. As such it is much more likely to result
in ultimate success, rather than by re-inventing the wheel as "square"
as the original Project Orion concept has with a "pusher-plate" sought
to do.

DGF 2003

(Diginomics) wrote in
om:

Point Summary of Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion in
Space:

1. It is not a pusher-plate but a type of cannon that should
contain the blast. The cannon could be described as a pusher-plate
with walls on it, obviously to focus the energy released by the blast.
Failing to focus the blast would also destroy many more satellites
than is necessary (EMP) and is also very wasteful of the energy
release. The number of explosions required to give propulsion would
thus be much less.
You would get more efficient use of your propellant, yes. But you would get
less acceleration, as the modification would **immensely** increase the
mass of the craft. The difference is between a pusher plate that absorbs an
impact by recoiling, and a rigid wall that resists the impact by being
stronger than the force being applied.

It is to be suggested "the inventor of new and
overwhelming explosion will fail to develop its most significant
application because of an over-whelmed sense of what the challenge of
physical containment will involve".
Its easy to contain a smallish nuclear explosion. All you need is some 20
meters of steel casing, situated at between 100 and 200 meters from the
nuke. The slight disadvantage of this is that the device would weigh
*hundreds* of *millions* of metric tons.


The rest of your post is similar.
A refreshing new view of an old concept, wrapped in pseudo-scientific terms
that pay little attention to actual laws of physics.

Its easy to contain a smallish nuclear explosion. All you need is some 20
meters of steel casing, situated at between 100 and 200 meters from the
nuke. The slight disadvantage of this is that the device would weigh
*hundreds* of *millions* of metric tons.

Asteroids can weigh that much. What you need is a nickle-Iron Asteroid that you
bore a hole in, that way you can make an asteroid cannon. Bush's return to the
Moon will produce a vehicle that can be used to reach near-Earth asteroids,
some of which may contain ample amounts of nickle and iron, som drilling rig
may be brought over and strapped to the asteroid so that a tunnel can be bored
toward the center, a thermo-nuclear device can then be dropped inside and
exploded.

Tom

Hi. Thanks for bothering to respond.

I would agree with you that my point 5 explanation is the weakest:

5. It should not be assumed that the human being suffers the same
intolerance to G force in space in exactly the same proportions as it
is experienced on earth.

All that I am saying is that there is an assumption here. I notice
NASA are launching some mice into space to study the effect of
artificial gravity. However the sad fact is that until we have a pilot
in space hurtling along at 3G reporting in his radio transmission that
it is just like 2G on earth, it is an error to just assume it will be.
Obviously our earth gravity is natural and is not generated in the
same way somebody being pushed at 1G through space would need to be on
first impressions to simulate it. This difference between the natural
and artificial could be important, or at least not discarding without
undue care and consideration. I am sure relativity experts could
produce various arguments, my only thought would be that since G is
measured in terms of T then T might behave differently in the
relativity of space when producing a physiological effect on the human
body. Hence we might be able to accelerate quicker to the stars than
we imagine because there is less discomfort at higher G. I do not
believe we should avoid positive affirmations when it comes to space
travel to the stars, especially since the vast majority of our
scientific predictions are limited to behaviours possible only to
deduce
from tests on earth where gravity is always a present factor.

Another response remarked the cannon (hollow tube plus pusher plate)
would weigh a lot more. Good point. This makes me wonder if that is
why the orioneers do not even discuss this rather obvious ancient
device. They were at the very beginning of the satellite age and the
ability to construct such a cannon in pieces in space using astronauts
and space stations was not feasible. Now thanks to your comment, I
understand more why they discarded the logical walls of the cannon to
leave just a pusher-plate! For me in this decade a ground launch
option does not seem practical, kind of ever...However this extra
weight of the craft (500 to 5000 tonnes and keep going up if you need
to envision successful physical containment) is not a problem but
almost an essential factor for a space crew using this fuel as an
accelerant. Again no test has been done so there is a lot of theory.
However obviously if immense force is unleashed with each detonation,
if the craft is too light then acceleration will knock out the crew.
Acceleration of the craft when actually already in space (as it will
be when built there) is going to be determined by dividing that force
by the mass (excluding relativity secondary considerations). This
extra mass may be very much needed and indeed one might argue that
some ballast may be required. If of course you start to diverge into
speculative smaller blasts, I'm afraid I have no inside knowledge and
must stick to the original historical observations of the Los Alamos
project. The most important issue to me does however seem to be the
technicality of building a 500 tonne space cannon in space from the
smaller parts we can actually get up there using exising rocket
technology! I would as a historian encourage study of the lessons of
the early european cannon makers in the 14th century, forced to make
cannons out of separate pieces. The technological limits of iron
foundry at that time could not cast them in one piece large enough to
do the job of being large enough to penetrate European castle walls.
Our equivalent today is that we cannot build rockets powerful enough
to put in one shot 500 tonnes of mass and more into orbit.

"Diginomics" wrote in message
m...
Hi. Thanks for bothering to respond.

I would agree with you that my point 5 explanation is the weakest:

5. It should not be assumed that the human being suffers the same
intolerance to G force in space in exactly the same proportions as it
is experienced on earth.

All that I am saying is that there is an assumption here. I notice
NASA are launching some mice into space to study the effect of
artificial gravity. However the sad fact is that until we have a pilot
in space hurtling along at 3G reporting in his radio transmission that
it is just like 2G on earth, it is an error to just assume it will be.

Umm why? All other evidence shows that it is exactly he same.

Obviously our earth gravity is natural and is not generated in the
same way somebody being pushed at 1G through space would need to be on
first impressions to simulate it. This difference between the natural
and artificial could be important, or at least not discarding without
undue care and consideration. I am sure relativity experts could
produce various arguments, my only thought would be that since G is
measured in terms of T

Umm, T? what's T stand for


then T might behave differently in the