|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
The Little Engineer That Could--Humor | Karl Gallagher | Policy | 0 | July 23rd 03 08:13 PM |