Project Orion Ground Launch.

i think i read a Popular Mechanics article where they listen various failed spacecraft missions using those nuclear batteries (RTG's i think). A few of these RTG cells are at the bottom of oceans, unable to be recovered even by our submersible technology today.
They carry volital plutonium.
And you think there's nothing to fear of launching a ship with hundreds of NUCLEAR WARHEADS IN IT?!?!?! I admire your faith in human competancy, but for crying out loud WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?! We're talking motherloads of nuclear fuel, which if launched is only a malfunction away from becoming dangerously toxic fish-food. Oh yeah, titanium casings, whatever, nature will even eat that over time, so that's not gonna work. You'd need some PERFECT plan of allowing the nuclear fuel/waste to be recovered quickly, safely, and easily as soon as it falls into the atmosphere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a lot of alarmism in this thread.

As has been pointed out, Orion was to be launched with conventional Von Braun style chemical boosters, and assembled in orbit.

Regarding the risk of a failed launch, we've been shooting Plutonium-filled RTGs into space for years and a number of launch failures have occurred with no resulting contamination. Nuclear weapon fuel's not all that dangerous beyond a chemical hazard of heavy metal contamination. Radioactivity doesn't present a problem because they're low-level nucleides. Given the protective casings we've crafted over the years, a failed launch's largest detriment would be the cost of the spacecraft, rather than anything environmental.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the name of the thread is "Project Orion Ground Launch."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geodesic

In the long term people will change over to cheaper kinds of cars. Energy from space would reduce electricity cost. This would have the result of making electrolysis cheaper. Electrolysis is employed for producing Hydrogen from sea water. City dwellers would also have the option of electric cars. A very attractive option if electricity prices drop. Especially during times of escalating oil prices.

People die in cars because they are inertia weapons. My point was that nobody is protesting the car despite the fact that a million people die every year. Why not? Because we don't want to keep a horse in the garage.

The unspoiled natural landscape in question is an empty wasteland of endless frozen water. The area affected by such a launch would be miniscule.

Q

Physicists did the feasibility study for Orion back in the 1960's and concluded it was not only possible but the only practical method of reaching space. I find the rather condescending and insulting accusation that I can't back up the case for Orion with a sound scientific basis rather comical. I therefore accept your challenge. Since the effects of nuclear bombs are now well known, the opacity and and ablative qualities of varied materials well understood and the physics of reaction driven space engines exceptionally well documented in thousands of journals I welcome any criticism you have and look forward to answering your engineering questions. If I don't have an answer to your more complex queries I can enquire of my more knowledgable friends in the rocket engineering field. As Nuclear Propulsion is currently one of the options being discussed for Bush's Mars Mission initiative I find the notion that Orion technology isn't realistic rather an absurd and desperate claim.

Dinokg

Fallout is irradiated material such as ground dirt. It was estimated that such a launch would have caused 10 fatalities back in the 60's. Employing neutron bombs would have mean't a tenfold reduction or a possible single fatality from inhalation of fallout. Quite surprising considering the level of fallout such a ground launch would have incurred. All massive construction endeavours incurr fatalities but even one death is deemed unacceptable. This is ofcourse an estimate made without employing any fallout reduction methods. With a heavy launchpad, specialised pulse units and numerous other factors taken into account it could work but Antarctica would be a much better choice in my opinion. Nevada is way too close to Los Angeles. The Antarctic wasteland would incurr far less fallout for numerous reasons.


phlog

You are thinking of chemical rockets. No atomic bomb has ever accidentally detonated. If the shock absorber system failed the ship would just fall over. The bombs would remain intact. Even if one went off in the hold(impossible unless sabotaged) the rest would not follow suit. There would be no Challenger scenario with atomic bombs. They aren't highly combustible explosives. Instead it requires an intricate sequence of events to trigger them.

weed_eater_guy

I don't see any reason to wait. Humanity has waited long enough for serious spaceflight. After two consecutive world wars followed by a cold war the western nations are still recovering from the horror and are strongly opposed to another world war. Combined with a lack of any remaining frontiers to challenge us the radical and adventurous have no outlet for their energies. This is resulting in a gradually secularising mindset. We are becoming introverted in our thinking and that is a recipe for self destruction. Every civilisation has followed the same pattern. Expansion, renaissance, stagnation and finally collapse. We are already in the third phase. Without challenge, exploration and adventure our more creative and couragious citizens can only turn their abilities to fighting against one another. Plato's Republic written thousands of years ago illustrates this phenomenon of societies rotting at the core for lack of external stimulus. We need variety above all else and our homogenising global community is losing this precious resource. Only by conquering new worlds can we overcome it. Its a conundrum that we need to work together to achieve really great things and yet such collaboration invariably leads to anarchism and bureaucratic incompetence/corruption. Whats needed to unite humanity and set us back on the course of expansionism is an international effort to throw open the door to space. We have to be realistic about it. Such an endeavour will require the most compact source of energy at our disposal and scary as such massive power is we must tame it. Just as our ancestors tamed fire, lightning and explosive chemicals at great cost in lives but to the longterm benefit of us all. We must be daring. Risk is a part of life. We have already paid much of the cost in discovering and perfecting this technology. Its trial by fire is over. The alternative isn't worth contemplating. Remember that Rome had developed a primitive steam engine prior to its destruction. A potentially revolutionary technology which could have heralded an ancient industrial age if only they had realised what they had and fully embraced its exciting possibilities. When that Superpower collapsed the ensuing dark age for scientific research lasted millenia.

Stokes
That was a last ditch effort to keep Orion going. The upper stage Orion method may still succeed but I believe it is pandering to illogical fears. A serious study into the feasibility of ground launch would prove that the residual fallout of a well planned program incorporating innovative fallout reduction methods would not only be reasonable and practical but the only serious method of conquering space in our lifetimes.

 

You quite clearly state that your plan would save lives. What in fact you could be interpreted as saying is that any deaths due to fallout are acceptable, as there would be far fewer of these than there are ICE-related deaths. In addition, you have no case to show that Orion ground launches are either safer, or more efficient than a space elevator.
Finally, in response to

Remember that, if we include the Eastern Empire, ie. Constantinople, which was founded by Rome, and did not collapse until at least 500AD, and which was also succeeded by the Middle Eastern Islamic Empire, which progressed scientifically, not to mention the Chinese and Japanese civilizations, we have an unbroken chain of scientific research, certainly from the Greeks onwards.

 

Nope, just concern. It depends wholly on what altitude the space craft is at if it fails, and how. And bear in mind, this thread is about 'ground launch'.

I mentioned Arianne5, because that failure was down to software, not the propellant, illustrating plenty of things can go wrong, and do.

You know as well as I do, that this nuke fest will get built by the lowest tendering company, and then politicians will jump all over it. That mixture is what has seen 14 Shuttle crew members killed. NASA really needs get it's shit together before even attempting something like this.

 

As far as NASA goes:
1. They need more funding.
2. In a while civilian space travel will out pace them probably.
3. Without extra funding other countries space programs will eventually be equal to or better then how NASA is currently.

In anycase eventually a nuclear rocket will be built.
If not by NASA then by someone else.

Its not like theres anything more powerful currently then nuclear power. Plus if and when a source of power greater then nuclear is discovered (like anti-matter, zero point energy, and others) it will be more tricky to use then nuclear power.

So I say a nuclear rocket should be made. But in a safe way.

 

What is the efficiency of this postulated nuclear rocket? And how much shielding are the astronauts going to need? If the rocket is powered by a chain reaction which is releasing a lot of neutrons/gamma radiation, the shielding needed to prevent radiation poisoning will probably outweigh the thrust benefits.

 

"It was estimated that such a launch would have caused 10 fatalities back in the 60's. Employing neutron bombs would have mean't a tenfold reduction or a possible single fatality from inhalation of fallout."

Fine, i'll go out on a limb and say since I'm pretty ambitious about going into space: this could be an adequate cost to pay, as you might agree. Unfortunately the fact that every launch will cost an average of one life would be a public-relations nightmare. And assuming one person dies every launch, dozens are getting radiation poisioning and desperately clinging for their lives as they struggle to fight their fallout-incuded brain tumors and leukemia. Lovely image, isn't it? And even if you launch in antarctica, there's no way you could convince the world to allow nuclear detonation on a continent with much potential to be explored.

I think most would be for the Orion Project, however, if someone developed nuclear bombs that produced no lethal radiation that would affect the environment and global society as adversly as a nuclear-bomb-powered ship would do.

 

I am not so sure about the whole "every launch will kill someone" thing.
Radiation, although very dangerous in high concentrations at close range, isn't super dangerous at lower concentrations and ranges. Everything is radioactive to some degree. Even foods and drinks, like beer.
Hears a link: http://www.fpl.com/about/nuclear/contents/nukebook_measuring_radiation.shtml

So according to the site: The radioactive elements generally present in the human body total an average of 250,000 picocuries, while a mug of beer averages 390 picocuries.

What I am getting at is that with enough dillution (from time and or space) that the radiation from nuclear launches shouldn't have as dramatic effect as many might think.

 

I find the rather condescending and insulting accusation that I can't back up the case for Orion with a sound scientific basis rather comical. I therefore accept your challenge.

Sorry Wayne, I'm not about to get caught up in a discussion about Orion with someone as obsessed with it as you - and spare me your speculations as I know them only too well.

btw - didn't you get banned from here once already when you created a userid and posted as yales and yales found out?

 

geodesic

I don't recall saying anything remotely like that. I pointed out some hypocrisy. That's all. I don't believe there would be any deaths from an Orion launch if it was done correctly.

I have a very solid case which I can put to you in five words. Space Elevators are just fantasy.

Sporadic spurts at best. The Romans even had to reinvent cement after Greece fell. Lost knowledge is a tragedy and the fact that everyone in the world wasn't a cave dweller doesn't mean anything. It takes a large base of scientifically minded individuals to maintain advanced technology.

 

geodesic,

That only becomes a concern with very small vehicles. Like the stupid watered down version proposed by those bright sparks at NASA.

weed guy,

I was pointing out what was possible back in the 1960's using fission bombs. They didn't even consider a launchpad. Since nearly all of the fallout would have come from the groundburst, a launchpad would have negated any fatalities by reducing fallout atleast 99%. Today we have fusion bombs 1000 times cleaner than fission devices. In short, don't assume fallout levels can't be diminished to safe enough levels. Nobody argued that cars should be abolished because petrol contained lead and this was giving children brain damage. Instead we found ways to reduce the pollution to more acceptable levels and replace the lead with something less harmful.

 

dinokg,

Beer is more radioactive than the coolant water released from nuclear power plants. Yet I know which one most people would prefer to drink. The walls of the White House contain so much uranium that if it was a Nuclear Power Plant it would be shut down. Even coal plants produce more radiation than a Nuke plant. You see, those coal beds don't just contain coal. They also contain radioactive elements like Thorium and Uranium which all gets grinded up, burned then pumped into our atmosphere for us to breathe. Generally thousands of tons of radioisotopes go into our air supply each year. Thats just from one coal plant ofcourse. I don't care to calculate the combined 'fallout' from the entire coal industry worldwide. But it dwarfs all weapons testing ever conducted. Just some trivia for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just some trivia for you.

... based on Waynes incredibly active imagination.

 

I also remember hearing about how beer is more radioactive then water from a nuclear plant. I think its because theres more plant residue in the beer that has absorbed more radiation in its growing cycle then the water has absorded in the nuclear reactor.

 

Q

I understand. Its so much easier to throw tomatoes at someone from a safe distance in the crowd and not challenge them directly.

So radiation hormesis, coal plant radiation, the fact that nuclear coolant water is so harmless its released into streams and onto vineyards to warm the roots is all in my imagination is it? What an active imagination I must have.

Coal Combustion.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Nuclear waste-heat to warm Finnish vineyard.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13763/story.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What have those factoids got to do with detonating nukes at ground level, and up, throughout the atmosphere, and the associated risks of detonating nukes behind a stockpile of nukes?

No system is perfect. All systems fail. How are you going to ensure that this system 'fails safe' every time?

 

its released into streams and onto vineyards to warm the roots is all in my imagination is it?

Yes, it is. The water is not released onto the the vineyard.

Once again, and as always, you allow your imagination to rule.

 

Did you miss the site I posted? The only factor missing in order for a space elevator to be built is the carbon nanofibre technology, which is a reasonably safe bet to be developed in the next ten years. This isn't the only serious proposal I've seen for a space elevator either. The main problem is funding, which is necessarily at the outset going to have to be mainly governmental. Someone needs to point out to the US government how incredibly militarily useful it would be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As a sidenote on your ideas, aren't large areas of Antactica World Heritage Sites?